>The analysis that simple cloth masks "work" is a guesstimate based on physics and not medicine - or at least it was at the time.
Actually, there were medical studies on this issue predating the pandemic showing a small benefit for respiratory diseases. Yes, a guesstimate (nobody could have tested for effect on Coronavirus in advance), but at least it's a guesstimate based on some things WHO, Fauci, etc. had knowledge of. Fauci says he was aware of this but worried about a run on mask supplies.
My point was that assessing social behaviour was far beyond the remit of the typical WHO member or apparently even epidemiologists. They should have 'followed the science' themselves and talked to people who actually have some expertise and experience in that, rather than make policy on a whim.
>That sounds questionable, epidemiology certainly does have human behavior as a component of study.
Fauci worried that if there was a mask mandate early on, would people have made a run on masks, leaving nothing to doctors. What's the epidemiological answer? What's the epidemiological model for even getting an answer?
There isn't any, because their toolbox for humans is much more limited than their toolbox for viruses. One really needs to ask other professions - you know, sociologists, economists, etc. for that one.
There were alternatives even if the answer was 'yes'. One could have mobilized production via DPA, or banned the sale of N95 masks. Instead, Fauci made a personal call based on no data.
>> Even now, in no place with a mask mandate has there been an increase in human contact.
>How would you be able to tell? What's your baseline?
Google (and I believe Apple too) release aggregate positional tracking data on activities. Most of the world shows decreases, including places with a mask mandate. I haven't seen any reporting of an increase tied to mandates in places that have them.
Actually, there were medical studies on this issue predating the pandemic showing a small benefit for respiratory diseases. Yes, a guesstimate (nobody could have tested for effect on Coronavirus in advance), but at least it's a guesstimate based on some things WHO, Fauci, etc. had knowledge of. Fauci says he was aware of this but worried about a run on mask supplies.
My point was that assessing social behaviour was far beyond the remit of the typical WHO member or apparently even epidemiologists. They should have 'followed the science' themselves and talked to people who actually have some expertise and experience in that, rather than make policy on a whim.
>That sounds questionable, epidemiology certainly does have human behavior as a component of study.
Fauci worried that if there was a mask mandate early on, would people have made a run on masks, leaving nothing to doctors. What's the epidemiological answer? What's the epidemiological model for even getting an answer?
There isn't any, because their toolbox for humans is much more limited than their toolbox for viruses. One really needs to ask other professions - you know, sociologists, economists, etc. for that one.
There were alternatives even if the answer was 'yes'. One could have mobilized production via DPA, or banned the sale of N95 masks. Instead, Fauci made a personal call based on no data.
>> Even now, in no place with a mask mandate has there been an increase in human contact.
>How would you be able to tell? What's your baseline?
Google (and I believe Apple too) release aggregate positional tracking data on activities. Most of the world shows decreases, including places with a mask mandate. I haven't seen any reporting of an increase tied to mandates in places that have them.