[BostonCard]

Don't mean to pick on Fox News personality, but:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-c...stop-lying

Back in March Tucker Carlson said:

Of course, masks work. Everyone knows that. Dozens of research papers have proved it. In South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, the rest of Asia -- where coronavirus has been kept under control -- masks were key.

The thrust of his argument was that people (including the surgeon general) who were saying "masks don't work" should have been saying "We messed up, but health care professionals, the sick and the elderly need the masks most, so they get priority."  It was, dare I say, a good point.

So why now is he saying that masks and social distancing is "bizarre health theater"

+++

Like, if he wanted to keep up his anti-establishment cred, he could have continued to hammer "elites" for discouraging mask use early in the epidemic.  Alas, as the experts have come to the (possibly belated) conclusion that masks can help, it seems Carlson has had to define himself in opposition to the experts.

The irony, of course, is that if masks are even remotely effective, they will enable economic growth and make it more likely that what I assume is his preferred presidential candidate will get re-elected.  Talk about cutting the nose to spite one's face.

BC

I saw this and it made me think of another post I had just read earlier today on another thread about how scientists sometimes have to change their minds as new information is developed.  That post, though, exhibited none of the cynical, disapproving tone of this one.  So, that got me to wondering who the author of that post might have been and why the difference in tone.  I went back and found it:

"Lex, I understand your frustration.  I wish it weren't so.  However, this is how science progresses; it is messy and comes about in fits and starts.  Sometimes what we think we know just ain't so, and we have to update our thinking of how things are.  Unfortunately, we don't always have the luxury of waiting until a conclusive study comes around, when we have to provide advice right now, based on whatever data you have and whatever parallels you can draw to similar situations in the past.  Unfortunately, sometimes that advice is wrong, sometimes its incomplete, often times it is contradictory.

Moreover, scientific advice comes from a lot of different individuals and organizations.  So I don't think it is surprising that it will be contradictory and confusing.  Over time, something approaching a consensus will emerge, and the advice will become more consistent.  But you are going to have to bear with process as it sorts everything out.  The scientific method is a bit like democracy, the worst system of knowledge advancement, except for all the other systems that have been tried."

Imagine my surprise when I discovered the author of that post was...

[you guessed it] ... BC !! 

Ah well... I guess maybe we can all agree ... it's messy!  :-)

I am open to the possibility that Carlson's change of heart was driven by a change in the underlying data.  However, I know of no data that would support a change in position from "Of course, masks work" to "[masks] have no basis of any kind of science".  Do you?

I have no allegiance to a specific position on masks.  Like, if multiple convincing studies came out to show that masks don't actually prevent transmission of COVID-19 then I would no longer support their routine use.  My position is not driven by reflex opposition to President Trump; if he happened to be right about it, so be it (likewise, while I didn't have high expectations for the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, I was hoping that, along with every other therapy tested, it would work for treating COVID-19).

In the absence of studies that suggest that masks are "a kind of bizarre health theater" (and again, if such data exists, by all means share it), I am left thinking that Tucker Carlson's position has evolved not because the data supports it, but for some other reason.  I don't claim to know whether it is reflexive opposition to "experts", or support for President Trump, or because he has found a formula that brings in ratings as Lex suggests, or something else. If this were something without consequence, then that's one thing.  However, we are in the midst of worsening wave of infections, and Carlson's show is influential, and I wonder whether his position on masks is contributing to lower adherence to mask use and therefore worsening of the pandemic.

BC

[BostonCard]

Don't mean to pick on Fox News personality, but:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-c...stop-lying

Back in March Tucker Carlson said:

Of course, masks work. Everyone knows that. Dozens of research papers have proved it. In South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, the rest of Asia -- where coronavirus has been kept under control -- masks were key.

The thrust of his argument was that people (including the surgeon general) who were saying "masks don't work" should have been saying "We messed up, but health care professionals, the sick and the elderly need the masks most, so they get priority."  It was, dare I say, a good point.

So why now is he saying that masks and social distancing is "bizarre health theater"

+++

Like, if he wanted to keep up his anti-establishment cred, he could have continued to hammer "elites" for discouraging mask use early in the epidemic.  Alas, as the experts have come to the (possibly belated) conclusion that masks can help, it seems Carlson has had to define himself in opposition to the experts.

The irony, of course, is that if masks are even remotely effective, they will enable economic growth and make it more likely that what I assume is his preferred presidential candidate will get re-elected.  Talk about cutting the nose to spite one's face.

BC

I saw this and it made me think of another post I had just read earlier today on another thread about how scientists sometimes have to change their minds as new information is developed.  That post, though, exhibited none of the cynical, disapproving tone of this one.  So, that got me to wondering who the author of that post might have been and why the difference in tone.  I went back and found it:

"Lex, I understand your frustration.  I wish it weren't so.  However, this is how science progresses; it is messy and comes about in fits and starts.  Sometimes what we think we know just ain't so, and we have to update our thinking of how things are.  Unfortunately, we don't always have the luxury of waiting until a conclusive study comes around, when we have to provide advice right now, based on whatever data you have and whatever parallels you can draw to similar situations in the past.  Unfortunately, sometimes that advice is wrong, sometimes its incomplete, often times it is contradictory.

Moreover, scientific advice comes from a lot of different individuals and organizations.  So I don't think it is surprising that it will be contradictory and confusing.  Over time, something approaching a consensus will emerge, and the advice will become more consistent.  But you are going to have to bear with process as it sorts everything out.  The scientific method is a bit like democracy, the worst system of knowledge advancement, except for all the other systems that have been tried."

Imagine my surprise when I discovered the author of that post was...

[you guessed it] ... BC !! 

Ah well... I guess maybe we can all agree ... it's messy!  :-)

I am open to the possibility that Carlson's change of heart was driven by a change in the underlying data.  However, I know of no data that would support a change in position from "Of course, masks work" to "[masks] have no basis of any kind of science".  Do you?

I have no allegiance to a specific position on masks.  Like, if multiple convincing studies came out to show that masks don't actually prevent transmission of COVID-19 then I would no longer support their routine use.  My position is not driven by reflex opposition to President Trump; if he happened to be right about it, so be it (likewise, while I didn't have high expectations for the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, I was hoping that, along with every other therapy tested, it would work for treating COVID-19).

In the absence of studies that suggest that masks are "a kind of bizarre health theater" (and again, if such data exists, by all means share it), I am left thinking that Tucker Carlson's position has evolved not because the data supports it, but for some other reason.  I don't claim to know whether it is reflexive opposition to "experts", or support for President Trump, or because he has found a formula that brings in ratings as Lex suggests, or something else. If this were something without consequence, then that's one thing.  However, we are in the midst of worsening wave of infections, and Carlson's show is influential, and I wonder whether his position on masks is contributing to lower adherence to mask use and therefore worsening of the pandemic.

BC