[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"

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1280654150955565056?s=20[/tweet]

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

[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"

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1280654150955565056?s=20[/tweet]

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

[lex24]

You may not have “meant to”, but you did.  Last time this came up a poster blamed all the ills of Western Civilization on Fox, but graciously said that it may be ok for conservatives to have thoughts.  Then the thread got shut down.

I’m not a Carlson fan. He’s an agitator. Laughing all the way to the bank. We have many of them on the 24/7 “news” networks. That includes CNN.

BUT The messaging on masks has been all over the damn place. And when the so-called leading expert comes out and says - in February - that we don’t need masks – and then later says he essentially was lying because he wanted to make sure hospital workers had masks, it’s not all that freaking surprising that some people question what is up and what is down. As for me I’ll wear a mask. Because from a risk benefit analysis it’s a no brainer in my opinion. Having said that, I kind of get why some people question it. But that’s just me.

Guess it’s time to invoke the Terry Rule.

[lex24]

You may not have “meant to”, but you did.  Last time this came up a poster blamed all the ills of Western Civilization on Fox, but graciously said that it may be ok for conservatives to have thoughts.  Then the thread got shut down.

I’m not a Carlson fan. He’s an agitator. Laughing all the way to the bank. We have many of them on the 24/7 “news” networks. That includes CNN.

BUT The messaging on masks has been all over the damn place. And when the so-called leading expert comes out and says - in February - that we don’t need masks – and then later says he essentially was lying because he wanted to make sure hospital workers had masks, it’s not all that freaking surprising that some people question what is up and what is down. As for me I’ll wear a mask. Because from a risk benefit analysis it’s a no brainer in my opinion. Having said that, I kind of get why some people question it. But that’s just me.

Guess it’s time to invoke the Terry Rule.

[BostonCard]

You may not have “meant to”, but you did.  Last time this came up a poster blamed all the ills of Western Civilization on Fox, but graciously said that it may be ok for conservatives to have thoughts.  Then the thread got shut down.

I’m not a Carlson fan.  He’s an agitator. Laughing all the way to the bank. We have many of them on the 24/7 “news” networks. That includes CNN. 

BUT The messaging on masks has been all over the damn place. And when the so-called leading expert comes out and says - in February - that we don’t need masks – and then later says he essentially was lying because he wanted to make sure hospital workers had masks, it’s not all that freaking surprising that some people question what is up and what is down. As for me I’ll wear a mask. Because from a risk benefit analysis it’s a no brainer in my opinion. Having said that, I kind of get why some people question it. But that’s just me.

Guess it’s time to invoke the Terry Rule.

Your points are well taken.  I think it is perfectly fair to criticize those who were slow to advocate for masks, and that includes me.  If you dig through early posts here, you will find me saying that while I supported masks and I thought they should work, there was not (at the time) an abundance of conclusive data to support their use.  I also noted pretty early on that the chief benefits of a regular mask (ie, not a properly fitted N95 mask) was to decrease the risk of inadvertent transmission to others, not to prevent one from catching COVID-19 from someone else.

Anyway, I agree the messaging about masks has not been great, and as I pointed out, Tucker deserves credit for calling out those who stated that they wouldn't work in order to preserve them for healthcare workers at a time of PPE shortages, when they should have been transparent about it.

But it's pretty damned cynical to go from a position of criticizing the experts when they are wrong, to criticizing them for the opposite reason when their position has changed.

BC

[BostonCard]

You may not have “meant to”, but you did.  Last time this came up a poster blamed all the ills of Western Civilization on Fox, but graciously said that it may be ok for conservatives to have thoughts.  Then the thread got shut down.

I’m not a Carlson fan.  He’s an agitator. Laughing all the way to the bank. We have many of them on the 24/7 “news” networks. That includes CNN. 

BUT The messaging on masks has been all over the damn place. And when the so-called leading expert comes out and says - in February - that we don’t need masks – and then later says he essentially was lying because he wanted to make sure hospital workers had masks, it’s not all that freaking surprising that some people question what is up and what is down. As for me I’ll wear a mask. Because from a risk benefit analysis it’s a no brainer in my opinion. Having said that, I kind of get why some people question it. But that’s just me.

Guess it’s time to invoke the Terry Rule.

Your points are well taken.  I think it is perfectly fair to criticize those who were slow to advocate for masks, and that includes me.  If you dig through early posts here, you will find me saying that while I supported masks and I thought they should work, there was not (at the time) an abundance of conclusive data to support their use.  I also noted pretty early on that the chief benefits of a regular mask (ie, not a properly fitted N95 mask) was to decrease the risk of inadvertent transmission to others, not to prevent one from catching COVID-19 from someone else.

Anyway, I agree the messaging about masks has not been great, and as I pointed out, Tucker deserves credit for calling out those who stated that they wouldn't work in order to preserve them for healthcare workers at a time of PPE shortages, when they should have been transparent about it.

But it's pretty damned cynical to go from a position of criticizing the experts when they are wrong, to criticizing them for the opposite reason when their position has changed.

BC

[lex24]

You may not have “meant to”, but you did.  Last time this came up a poster blamed all the ills of Western Civilization on Fox, but graciously said that it may be ok for conservatives to have thoughts.  Then the thread got shut down.

I’m not a Carlson fan.  He’s an agitator. Laughing all the way to the bank. We have many of them on the 24/7 “news” networks. That includes CNN. 

BUT The messaging on masks has been all over the damn place. And when the so-called leading expert comes out and says - in February - that we don’t need masks – and then later says he essentially was lying because he wanted to make sure hospital workers had masks, it’s not all that freaking surprising that some people question what is up and what is down. As for me I’ll wear a mask. Because from a risk benefit analysis it’s a no brainer in my opinion. Having said that, I kind of get why some people question it. But that’s just me.

Guess it’s time to invoke the Terry Rule.

Your points are well taken.  I think it is perfectly fair to criticize those who were slow to advocate for masks, and that includes me.  If you dig through early posts here, you will find me saying that while I supported masks and I thought they should work, there was not (at the time) an abundance of conclusive data to support their use.  I also noted pretty early on that the chief benefits of a regular mask (ie, not a properly fitted N95 mask) was to decrease the risk of inadvertent transmission to others, not to prevent one from catching COVID-19 from someone else.

Anyway, I agree the messaging about masks has not been great, and as I pointed out, Tucker deserves credit for calling out those who stated that they wouldn't work in order to preserve them for healthcare workers at a time of PPE shortages, when they should have been transparent about it.

But it's pretty damned cynical to go from a position of criticizing the experts when they are wrong, to criticizing them for the opposite reason when their position has changed.

BC

Agree.  His job is to agitate.  Same as Ingraham, Hannity, Lemon, Cuomo, Cooper Maddox, O’Donnell etc etc etc...

[lex24]

You may not have “meant to”, but you did.  Last time this came up a poster blamed all the ills of Western Civilization on Fox, but graciously said that it may be ok for conservatives to have thoughts.  Then the thread got shut down.

I’m not a Carlson fan.  He’s an agitator. Laughing all the way to the bank. We have many of them on the 24/7 “news” networks. That includes CNN. 

BUT The messaging on masks has been all over the damn place. And when the so-called leading expert comes out and says - in February - that we don’t need masks – and then later says he essentially was lying because he wanted to make sure hospital workers had masks, it’s not all that freaking surprising that some people question what is up and what is down. As for me I’ll wear a mask. Because from a risk benefit analysis it’s a no brainer in my opinion. Having said that, I kind of get why some people question it. But that’s just me.

Guess it’s time to invoke the Terry Rule.

Your points are well taken.  I think it is perfectly fair to criticize those who were slow to advocate for masks, and that includes me.  If you dig through early posts here, you will find me saying that while I supported masks and I thought they should work, there was not (at the time) an abundance of conclusive data to support their use.  I also noted pretty early on that the chief benefits of a regular mask (ie, not a properly fitted N95 mask) was to decrease the risk of inadvertent transmission to others, not to prevent one from catching COVID-19 from someone else.

Anyway, I agree the messaging about masks has not been great, and as I pointed out, Tucker deserves credit for calling out those who stated that they wouldn't work in order to preserve them for healthcare workers at a time of PPE shortages, when they should have been transparent about it.

But it's pretty damned cynical to go from a position of criticizing the experts when they are wrong, to criticizing them for the opposite reason when their position has changed.

BC

Agree.  His job is to agitate.  Same as Ingraham, Hannity, Lemon, Cuomo, Cooper Maddox, O’Donnell etc etc etc...

[chrisk]

You may not have “meant to”, but you did.  Last time this came up a poster blamed all the ills of Western Civilization on Fox, but graciously said that it may be ok for conservatives to have thoughts.  Then the thread got shut down.

I’m not a Carlson fan.  He’s an agitator. Laughing all the way to the bank. We have many of them on the 24/7 “news” networks. That includes CNN. 

BUT The messaging on masks has been all over the damn place. And when the so-called leading expert comes out and says - in February - that we don’t need masks – and then later says he essentially was lying because he wanted to make sure hospital workers had masks, it’s not all that freaking surprising that some people question what is up and what is down. As for me I’ll wear a mask. Because from a risk benefit analysis it’s a no brainer in my opinion. Having said that, I kind of get why some people question it. But that’s just me.

Guess it’s time to invoke the Terry Rule.

Your points are well taken.  I think it is perfectly fair to criticize those who were slow to advocate for masks, and that includes me.  If you dig through early posts here, you will find me saying that while I supported masks and I thought they should work, there was not (at the time) an abundance of conclusive data to support their use.  I also noted pretty early on that the chief benefits of a regular mask (ie, not a properly fitted N95 mask) was to decrease the risk of inadvertent transmission to others, not to prevent one from catching COVID-19 from someone else.

Anyway, I agree the messaging about masks has not been great, and as I pointed out, Tucker deserves credit for calling out those who stated that they wouldn't work in order to preserve them for healthcare workers at a time of PPE shortages, when they should have been transparent about it.

But it's pretty damned cynical to go from a position of criticizing the experts when they are wrong, to criticizing them for the opposite reason when their position has changed.

BC

Agree.  His job is to agitate.  Same as Ingraham, Hannity, Lemon, Cuomo, Cooper Maddox, O’Donnell etc etc etc...

There is a direct connection between Carlson and the President's speechwriter as shown by an analysis of Carlson's diabtribes and the President's speeches. I'm not sure which way the channel flows (which way or bi-directional) but the similarities in wording are uncanny.

[chrisk]

You may not have “meant to”, but you did.  Last time this came up a poster blamed all the ills of Western Civilization on Fox, but graciously said that it may be ok for conservatives to have thoughts.  Then the thread got shut down.

I’m not a Carlson fan.  He’s an agitator. Laughing all the way to the bank. We have many of them on the 24/7 “news” networks. That includes CNN. 

BUT The messaging on masks has been all over the damn place. And when the so-called leading expert comes out and says - in February - that we don’t need masks – and then later says he essentially was lying because he wanted to make sure hospital workers had masks, it’s not all that freaking surprising that some people question what is up and what is down. As for me I’ll wear a mask. Because from a risk benefit analysis it’s a no brainer in my opinion. Having said that, I kind of get why some people question it. But that’s just me.

Guess it’s time to invoke the Terry Rule.

Your points are well taken.  I think it is perfectly fair to criticize those who were slow to advocate for masks, and that includes me.  If you dig through early posts here, you will find me saying that while I supported masks and I thought they should work, there was not (at the time) an abundance of conclusive data to support their use.  I also noted pretty early on that the chief benefits of a regular mask (ie, not a properly fitted N95 mask) was to decrease the risk of inadvertent transmission to others, not to prevent one from catching COVID-19 from someone else.

Anyway, I agree the messaging about masks has not been great, and as I pointed out, Tucker deserves credit for calling out those who stated that they wouldn't work in order to preserve them for healthcare workers at a time of PPE shortages, when they should have been transparent about it.

But it's pretty damned cynical to go from a position of criticizing the experts when they are wrong, to criticizing them for the opposite reason when their position has changed.

BC

Agree.  His job is to agitate.  Same as Ingraham, Hannity, Lemon, Cuomo, Cooper Maddox, O’Donnell etc etc etc...

There is a direct connection between Carlson and the President's speechwriter as shown by an analysis of Carlson's diabtribes and the President's speeches. I'm not sure which way the channel flows (which way or bi-directional) but the similarities in wording are uncanny.

[BostonCard]

Agree.  His job is to agitate.  Same as Ingraham, Hannity, Lemon, Cuomo, Cooper Maddox, O’Donnell etc etc etc...

As I said, he could agitate just fine by chastising the experts for changing their mind, for being late to the party, etc.  It would have the added bonus of decreasing infections.  Unfortunately, there are consequences to his agitating.

BC

[BostonCard]

Agree.  His job is to agitate.  Same as Ingraham, Hannity, Lemon, Cuomo, Cooper Maddox, O’Donnell etc etc etc...

As I said, he could agitate just fine by chastising the experts for changing their mind, for being late to the party, etc.  It would have the added bonus of decreasing infections.  Unfortunately, there are consequences to his agitating.

BC

[lex24]

Agree.  His job is to agitate.  Same as Ingraham, Hannity, Lemon, Cuomo, Cooper Maddox, O’Donnell etc etc etc...

As I said, he could agitate just fine by chastising the experts for changing their mind, for being late to the party, etc.  It would have the added bonus of decreasing infections.  Unfortunately, there are consequences to his agitating.

BC

Agree.  Indeed there are consequences for all the media agitation....

[lex24]

Agree.  His job is to agitate.  Same as Ingraham, Hannity, Lemon, Cuomo, Cooper Maddox, O’Donnell etc etc etc...

As I said, he could agitate just fine by chastising the experts for changing their mind, for being late to the party, etc.  It would have the added bonus of decreasing infections.  Unfortunately, there are consequences to his agitating.

BC

Agree.  Indeed there are consequences for all the media agitation....

[76lsjumb]

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!  :-)

[76lsjumb]

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!  :-)

[oldalum]

Now that there seems to be a consensus about aerosol transmission, it seems to me that everyone should be wearing N95 masks (like the KN95 masks now being sold in the U.S. to the public) instead of cloth masks. This would help spread of infection in both directions (to and from the mask wearer). But we apparently are short maybe a half-billion N95 masks to do this so no one is suggesting it?

[oldalum]

Now that there seems to be a consensus about aerosol transmission, it seems to me that everyone should be wearing N95 masks (like the KN95 masks now being sold in the U.S. to the public) instead of cloth masks. This would help spread of infection in both directions (to and from the mask wearer). But we apparently are short maybe a half-billion N95 masks to do this so no one is suggesting it?

[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

[OutsiderFan]

I've pretty well beat the mask issue into a dead horse, but...

It continues to astonish me how ambiguous the mask messaging is.  The Governor of Ohio issues a mask wearing directive "for counties that are in X zone."  Why the hell just not make it simple?

Everyone in the state:

- Wear a mask inside anywhere outside your own home
- Wear a mask outside in places other people are gathering
- No mask required when walking, running or biking and keeping distance from others while outside

All the mixed messaging and when to wear, not to wear, all contributes to fewer masks being worn.  

This all said, I did see a study that showed about 2/3 of Americans are wearing masks, which is way better than the sorry 1/4 of the UK population the same study cited wearing them.

[OutsiderFan]

I've pretty well beat the mask issue into a dead horse, but...

It continues to astonish me how ambiguous the mask messaging is.  The Governor of Ohio issues a mask wearing directive "for counties that are in X zone."  Why the hell just not make it simple?

Everyone in the state:

- Wear a mask inside anywhere outside your own home
- Wear a mask outside in places other people are gathering
- No mask required when walking, running or biking and keeping distance from others while outside

All the mixed messaging and when to wear, not to wear, all contributes to fewer masks being worn.  

This all said, I did see a study that showed about 2/3 of Americans are wearing masks, which is way better than the sorry 1/4 of the UK population the same study cited wearing them.