> The full nuanced statement was: "The CURRENT scientific evidence that is available does not support (OR deny!) that mask wearing by (specifically) the general public is (cost) effective enough to legally mandate. ALSO, at THIS TIME there is insufficient supply of masks, AND UNTIL supply can be increased the masks should be prioritised for health workers (that are trained to wear them properly)."
100% false. The statements were about what individuals should do. Not what governments would mandate. And some authorities said masks don't work expressly. "Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus"[1]
> People got especially confused by the "current scientific evidence does not support", because to them that sounds like "scientists say it doesn't work". That's not what that says at all, it's just a statement to say that not enough studies have been done at all to say anything one way or another confidently.
Current scientific evidence showed masks were effective for closely related coronaviruses. Do you doubt they would have recommended masks without a shortage?
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20200301144229/https://twitter.co...
But this is Dan Luu's point exactly. When forced to communicate at scale -- such as public health directive messaging -- there's no choice. Nuance doesn't work, only the simplest, blunt messages "get through".
Fauci, like many others, were concerned about panic-buying of masks. It's not that they don't work at all, they obviously do, and Fauci knew this. However, they don't work anywhere near as effectively in the hands of the untrained public (chin straps! pulling masks aside to sneeze! INCREASED touching of the face to adjust masks!), so it's taking masks away from people that can use them effectively.
Option 1) Tell the full message, mention that masks do work to a degree.
Outcome 1) People panic buy, and the overall effect is to make the pandemic worse because health professionals can't get enough PPE.
Option 2) Straight up tell people not to buy masks.
Outcome 2) People shrug their shoulders, don't buy masks, and the overall outcome is better, especially for the overburdened health system.
Which would you choose?
Nuance -- resulting in dead doctors and nurses, crippling the health system OR the clear but inaccurate statement -- that saves the country?
This is why it cracks me up to see responses precisely like yours, foaming at the mouth in anger.
You're angry at people that did what you would have done, if sitting in their position and faced with the same choices.
Some countries were able to issue effective mask wearing guidance - without lying to people, or causing mass mask hoarding. So let's not pretend that wasn't achievable.
Let's also not act like we tried other outcomes first; incentives to mask production, disincentives to mask hoarding, etc.
Multiple trusted organisations lied to Americans, not just for practical purposes but also for political and personal reasons. "Trust the science" now means, obey the science that we didn't censor / fail to investigate / lock behind data protection. It's really not justified, however thick you take people for, and however limited your imagination.
What choice did they have? They were talking to Americans!
Our institutions need to be both truthful, and also accountable. This means being able to freely debate the facts without censorship. And for the decisions and communications of our organisations and leaders to be examined, debated, and judged. We cannot have a society where people are knowingly and deliberately misinformed, and debate of the matters is suppressed. That's 1930s Germany levels of gaslighting and suppression. The West is supposed to be Free, and this is not free or democratic.