When the pandemic first hit, before there was any discussion about masks in the larger media or culture, and no disputes on the topic, the medical experts and professionals in our staff meetings were very concerned and guarded about recommending people wear masks in general, because their concern that the general population was not trained in such, that improper protocol when donning or doffing the masks would transfer the germs to hands far more easily, then to surfaces, that failure to wear regular disposable masks or wash cloth ones would simply expand the problem, etc.
(The similar concern was made about wearing gloves in the larger population… they were concerned that doing so would create a false sense of security, it would reduce hand washing and other such protocols, and improper use would be more likely to transmit than if people washed their hands.)
I’m happy to listen to all perspectives, but I am always concerned when any legitimate scientific dissent is summarily ruled out of court, and their dissent is practically condemned a moral issue, where morality would be defined by their abandoning their independent thought and just getting on the bandwagon. these seemingly highly respected directors of medical services in European countries don’t strike me as some sort of fringe, backwoods unscientific folk whose alternative perspective on these topics ought to be so summarily dismissed.
I used to think that was what science was about, after all… to borrow again from my mentor…
It is just the same here as in science. The phenomenon which is troublesome, which doesn’t fit in with the current scientific theories, is the phenomenon which compels reconsideration and thus leads to new knowledge. Science progresses because scientists, instead of running away from such troublesome phenomena or hushing them up, are constantly seeking them out.
At least, I used to believe this is how science was supposed to work.