The united states also said not to buy masks and that they were ineffective during the pandemic.

Placing absolute trust in these organizations and restricting freedom of speech based on that is a very bootlicking, anti-freedom stance

▲

anonymousiam 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Fauci was trying to prevent a run on masks, which he believed were needed by the health care workers. So he probably justified his lie to the US to himself because it was for the "greater good" (The ends justify the means is not my view BTW).

It turns out that masks ARE largely ineffective at preventing CoViD infection. It's amazing how many studies have come up with vastly different results.

https://egc.yale.edu/research/largest-study-masks-and-covid-...

(Before you tell me that the story I cited above says the opposite, look at the effectiveness percentages they claim for each case.)

There's also this: https://x.com/RandPaul/status/1970565993169588579

▲

iyn 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Actual (N95/FFP2/FFP3) masks DO work, your comment is misleading. The study you've linked says:

> Colored masks of various construction were handed out free of charge, accompanied by a range of mask-wearing promotional activities inspired by marketing research

"of various construction" is... not very specific.

If you just try to cover your face with a piece of cloth it won't work well. But if you'll use a good mask (N95/FFP2/FFP3), with proper fit [0] then you can decrease the chance of being infected (see e.g. [1])

[0] https://www.mpg.de/17916867/coronavirus-masks-risk-protectio...

[1] https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/upgrading-ppe-for-staff-...

▲

dotnet00 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They claim a 5% reduction in spread with cloth masks and a 12% reduction with surgical masks. I think 1 less case out of every 10 or 20 is pretty acceptable?

Especially at the time when many countries were having their healthcare systems overloaded by cases.

▲

pixxel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

lisbbb 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I didn't want to be the one to have to say it, but neither masks nor social distancing had any scientific backing at all. It was all made up, completely made up. The saddest thing I see all the time is the poor souls STILL wearing masks in 2025 for no reason. I don't care how immunocompromised they are, the mask isn't doing anything to prevent viral infection at all. They might help against pollen. I also can't believe how many doctors and nurses at my wife's cancer clinic wear masks all the damn time even though they are not in a surgical enviornment. It's all been foisted upon them by the management of those clinics and the management is completely insane and nobody speaks up about it because it's their job if they do, so the isanity just keeps rolling on and on and it is utterly dehumanizing and demoralizing. If a cancer patient wants to wear a mask because it affords them some tiny comfort, then fine, but that is purely psychological. I've seen it over and over and over because I've been at numerous hospitals this past year trying to help my wife survive a cancer that I think Pfizer may be to blame for.

	▲	D-Machine 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Basically, yes. However, if we make a distinction between respirators (e.g. N95 mask) and masks (including "surgical" masks, which don't really have a meaningfully better FFE than cloth masks), then at least respirators offer some protection to the wearer, provided they also still minimize contact. But, in keeping with this distinction, yes, masks were never seriously scientifically supported. It is incredibly disheartening to see mask mandates still in cancer wards, despite these being mandates for (objectively useless) cloth/surgical masks.
	▲	jbm 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I'm sorry about your wife. There was scientific basis for N95 masks and similar masks. If you are talking about cloth and paper masks, I mostly agree. Even then there were tests done with using even those surgical masks with 3d printed frames. I remember this as one example of people following this line of thinking. https://www.concordia.ca/news/stories/2021/07/26/surgical-ma... As for dehumanization, I used to live in Tokyo and spending years riding the train. I think blaming masks for dehumanization when we have entire systems ragebaiting us on a daily basis is like blaming the LED light for your electric bill. Social Distancing having "no scientific backing" is very difficult to respond to. Do you mean in terms of long term reduction of spread, or as a temporary measure to prevent overwhelming the hospitals (which is what the concern was at the time)? I do agree that it was fundamentally dishonest to block people from going to church and then telling other people it was OK to protest (because somehow these protests were "socially distanced" and outdoors). They could have applied the same logic to Church groups and helped them find places to congregate, but it was clearly a case of having sympathy for the in-group vs the out-group.
	▲	iyn 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I didn't want to be the one to have to say it, but neither masks nor social distancing had any scientific backing at all. This is false. Even quick search shows multiple papers from pre-covid times that show masks being effective [0][1]. There are many more studies post-covid that show that N95/FFP2/FFP3 masks actually work if you wear them correctly (most people don't know how to do this). Educate yourself before sharing lies. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21477136/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19652172/

▲

amanaplanacanal 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah they burned a lot of trust with that, for sure.

▲

lisbbb 7 hours ago | parent [-]

They burned it beyond down to the ground and below. And many of you on here willfully continue to trust them and argue vehemently against people who try to tell you the actual truth of the matter. RFK Jr. is a flawed human being, but he's doing some good work in unwinding some of the web of lies we live under right now.

	▲	aeternum 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's good RFK is more willing to question things but he seems just as guilty when it comes to spinning webs of lies. If we think tylenol might cause autism why doesn't he run/fund a nice clean and large randomized controlled trial? Instead he spreads conjecture based on papers with extremely weak evidence.
	▲	alphabettsy 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		He’s just bringing different lies with new sponsors.

▲

10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]