If anyone is interested here is report published in 2007 by St.louis Federal Reserve about the 1918 Flu pandemic.<p><a href="https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-development/research-reports/pandemic_flu_report.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-deve...</a>
See also this article from the LA Times, comparing the LA vs. SF reactions to the 1918-1919 pandemic: <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-19/coronavirus-lessons-from-great-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic" rel="nofollow">https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-19/coronavi...</a>
>On Jan 17, the day the masking ordinance went into effect, the # of new cases/deaths declined, the first decline in quite some time. This continued until the epidemic faded.<p>same-day effect, especially on the number of deaths, of the masks? To me it sounds like it peaked and started to decline before any effects from the masks as the masks effect on the death number would take a few days at least. I mean i'm not against the masks, i do think they have positive effect, it is just in that case it seems that the mask ordinance came too late. It was already something like 2 months of the raging second wave.
It feels like the lesson here is that enforcement with arrests is going to provoke a backlash, whereas convincing people it's good for them is a better strategy.
Is there any reason to believe that gauze masks are even slightly effective against influenza?<p>The flu can stay viable in air for hours, and the individual exhaled airborne particles are vastly smaller than the holes in gauze -- it's "breathable" (allows moisture droplets to pass)<p>I suspect the mechanism of action is inconveniencing people into not leaving home at all, a no-pants order would probably have worked as well or better
We have huge fines here in South-East Asia, if you leave home without a mask. Even if probability of decrease transmitting 10%, on 1 million cases it's 100 thousand people.
So what was the problem with the masks? The thread calls it "The dollar sign is exalted above the health sign" but why was this a money tradeoff? Due to the cost of the masks?
This is a great example of "there is nothing new under the sun".<p>People may feel we live in unique times, but yet again, not much has changed since 1919.
Early 1900's were also the heyday of eugenics.<p>The author above says civil libertarians were worried about a slippery slope, where mask laws could lead to forced vaccines "or any experiment or indignity." I think anti-mask concern is more interesting in that context.
The restless extrovert's outlook is super bizarro. I'm personally looking forward to wearing a mask long after this pandemic has passed, to defend my privacy against ubiquitous facial recognition.<p>I want to live in a world where these things aren't legally mandated, but everyone does them because they're good ideas. Apparently that world is impossible.<p>It's similar to the people that don't wear their seatbelt to somehow stick it to the government. Apparently their driving is so lame that they've never appreciated the seatbelt while cornering? Sigh.
Pretty confusing that the first tweet starts with 2018, should be 1918 I guess. Man I hate platforms that don't allow editing ones sentences, like Whatsapp. So often I find mistake, very often the last word that was autocorrected between the time I typed it and hit enter and couldn't stop my finger from going down on that send key anymore.
Masks could have prevented the quarantines, and will be needed again when they end. The quarantines are a last resort, after the failure of public policy and non-medical-interventions to contain the virus.<p>I made a video which shows that masks are the answer, there is no shortage, and that our government leaders were wrong in telling us not to wear them:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppiPaYI-x4E" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppiPaYI-x4E</a>
someone on reddit found some disturbing astroturfing<p><a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/g3sw2l/the_user_udr_midnight_uncovers_a_massive/" rel="nofollow">https://old.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/g3sw2l/the_user_udr...</a><p>lots of new facebook groups like pages asking for reopening, then retweeted by the president<p>crowds are so weird
A more readable version: <a href="https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1251936242834563073.html" rel="nofollow">https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1251936242834563073.html</a>
This is not a civil rights thing. This is a public health thing.<p>Being opposed to keeping crowds off of beaches and people from infecting one another in restaurants is akin to advocating against vaccinations or seatbelt use.<p>Right now we are in the middle of a flaming inferno and there is a vital role for our democratically elected government to play in mandating mask use and other measures. This is very much a war like moment and we should unify in our resolve to defeat our shared enemy.
Comparing the SF health officer from 1918-1919 to Dr. Fauci is a bit rough since Dr. Fauci was anti-mask and also said the risk of coronavirus was miniscule in mid-February.<p><a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/17/nih-disease-official-anthony-fauci-risk-of-coronavirus-in-u-s-is-minuscule-skip-mask-and-wash-hands/4787209002/" rel="nofollow">https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/17/nih-di...</a>
I find the conclusion that the masks helped a little puzzling. I'm sure it indeed slowed the rate of infection, but what they ultimately wanted to happen was fewer total people getting sick. With constant travel through SF, slowing the infection doesn't seem like it should produce that result, just spread it out over more time.
The problem here is that when you start passing laws and fines on people not for causing damage to other but "for their own good" that are essentially violating core principles of modern democracy(as in the right to assembly, or conduct commerce), the state are taking on the persona of an "benevolent dictatorship" which are bound to drive some people towards contrarianism.<p>The measures taken might be completely right from an medical science perspective but we have moved away from a system where an enlightened monarch or central committee makes decisions on behaf of the ignorant people because history have shown that such systems always devolve into conspiracies against the many by the powerful few, so we cannot respond to every minor crisis by having the government adopt the tactics and language of an benevolent dictatorship and must govern by consent, ie it's the scientists job to make the public understand the risks/benefits not dictate solutions.
It looks like a pretty good strategy is to allow people who believe this to go out and kill themselves. On the other hand, what if they’re right and no ones going to die over this? You could require that they pay into a hazard bond that pays out back to them if they don’t get sick.