This one is against rationalists because when Scott wrote his review that masks could be effective many of us trusted it.
I don't blame Scott for failing this one because doing review of hundreds of studies is hard and one person can hardly do it. But this clearly shows that rationalist way of thinking has no special formula, they can be easily mistaken and fall by accepting general consensus just like any other person.
I was impressed when Scott did his review about masks. I trusted it because there was no other clear evidence available. Cochrane hadn't done its review yet and NICE guidelines were silent on the issue. We vaguely knew from previous studies that masks are not effective, The WHO had said so. Suddenly everyone flipped and it was not because the evidence had changed. We simply wanted to believe that masks work and we mocked those who said “no evidence that masks help”.
Even with the belief that masks work, I never wanted mask mandates. I preferred recommendations only, so that no one was penalized or prohibited entry, travel etc if one doesn't want to wear mask. Scott unwillingly had been a catalyst for governments to introduce mask mandates and all this heavy handed approach has been for nothing.
Now we are back to square one, the evidence about masks is weak and it does not support their use even in hospital settings. We can all reflect now what happened in between during these 2 or 3 years. When I realized that Scott's review is clearly insufficient as evidence, I asked some doctors if they have any better evidence that masks work. Instead of getting answer I was told not to be silly, parachutes don't need RCTs and accused me of being covid denier for nor reason. Many so-called experts were making the same mistake as Scott by looking at the issue too emotionally. It is time to get back to reality and admit that it was a mistake and we should have judged the issue with more rational mind.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think this is how he's talking about it, but he can defend himself.
What's the point of discussing some abstract perfect usage of a mask type most people didn't even have, given the policies that were implemented and the censorship of dissent? When people say "masks don't work", they clearly mean the masks they were forced to wear.
Yes. The bailey is "of course masks work, you're banned for spreading misinformation", and the motte is "of course properly fitted masks, of a type that no one wore, work".
How is it bizarre? I maintain that it's obvious when people say "masks don't work" they meant the masks they were actually forced to wear. What are they misrepresenting? How is it not the pro-maskers who are not misusing the science instead?
Why should we limit ourselves to the conversation that is happening here?
Again, they can defend themselves, but I think you're misinterpreting people.
Yes.
Neither is discussing the effectiveness of a policy that was never implemented, and which would arguably be unenforceable, but this is exactly what you seem to want to do for some reason.
Pointing out a policy did not work, isn't "boo outgroup".
Cool. My interest is as a dude who was forced to wear an ineffective surgical / FFP2 mask for 2 years, and who would get censored for expressing the sentiment that they are ineffective. Like I said, I maintain it is obvious that the statement "masks don't work" refers to the masks that were mandated by the aforementioned policy. I'm not making anything up. This stuff happened.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link