[Goose]

I've been waiting for something like this since April. Now it's here! This isn't done by some scientist with a political agenda. This is by Goldman Sachs, who pretty much only cares about money.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/HeidiNBC/status/1281606616794701824[/tweet]

OF, I am completely with you on the idea we should all wear masks. But I have to say I really hate to see statements like this in the article:
"The public health benefits of mask wearing are, by now, well-documented. A variety of cloth face coverings help prevent the coronavirus from spreading to others by blocking the wearer's respiratory droplets, which, if the individual is infected, can spread the virus through coughs, sneezes, or even regular speech."

It simply isn't true that the public health benefits of wearing a mask are well documented. It is well documented that there are mechanisms that can spread the virus that masks do inhibit. How significant that is as a a public health benefit won't be documented for a while. We don't have the equivalent of a double blind clinical trial proving it.
For some reason the press seems to believe every answer has to be a yes or a no, and if it isn't they chose one side and say it is. What is incontrovertibly true is that masks interfere with mechanisms that can spread the virus, and that masks have essentially no known downside. Given that, we should wear them. It probably matters some, and there are reasons to believe it matters a lot. It may turn out it is a very marginal benefit, but even if that is the case, it is the best (only) option we have.

[Goose]

I've been waiting for something like this since April. Now it's here! This isn't done by some scientist with a political agenda. This is by Goldman Sachs, who pretty much only cares about money.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/HeidiNBC/status/1281606616794701824[/tweet]

OF, I am completely with you on the idea we should all wear masks. But I have to say I really hate to see statements like this in the article:
"The public health benefits of mask wearing are, by now, well-documented. A variety of cloth face coverings help prevent the coronavirus from spreading to others by blocking the wearer's respiratory droplets, which, if the individual is infected, can spread the virus through coughs, sneezes, or even regular speech."

It simply isn't true that the public health benefits of wearing a mask are well documented. It is well documented that there are mechanisms that can spread the virus that masks do inhibit. How significant that is as a a public health benefit won't be documented for a while. We don't have the equivalent of a double blind clinical trial proving it.
For some reason the press seems to believe every answer has to be a yes or a no, and if it isn't they chose one side and say it is. What is incontrovertibly true is that masks interfere with mechanisms that can spread the virus, and that masks have essentially no known downside. Given that, we should wear them. It probably matters some, and there are reasons to believe it matters a lot. It may turn out it is a very marginal benefit, but even if that is the case, it is the best (only) option we have.