@pjakobs

To me, "not going out on a limb" would look something like "we're not completely sure of the ins and outs of this thing, so in the meantime let's be on the safe side, here's what we're pretty sure will help, more when we know more".

The thing is, the WHO _did_ "go out on a limb". They actively assured people that it _wasn't_ airborne.

Moreover, when they changed their minds and backtracked, there was no campaign like "hey everyone, sorry, we called this one wrong - please revise the protocols you built on top of our mistake".

@johnzajac @syllopsium

@pjakobs

Did you ever read this article about the aerosol / droplet argument? It's interesting.

https://archive.ph/ifEwW

@johnzajac @syllopsium

@pjakobs

But this is recapitulating one of the early mistakes about mask science. We _did_ have data - on the size of aerosol particles likely to carry viruses, and the size of particles caught by different filter materials. When you know the physics, you can deduce things directly about the efficacy of different types of masks, without having to wait for them to be used inconsistently by humans and then try to sieve the resulting signal out of the noise.

(Then of course we run into the denial that airborne was important. But quite a lot of people were right about that from day 1, and had data to strongly suggest it should be taken seriously. I've not forgiven the WHO for denying it.)

@johnzajac @syllopsium