Read on Twitter
why be so bothered about unintended consequences? it sounds good, it sounds like it might work. People have good intentions, care deeply, want to do something useful. and yet:
when I was a medical student people with sore backs were told to rest it for 6 weeks. resting the muscles. lying down. seemed to help. people got better. widely recommended. sounded really sensible. but then trials showed it was harmful. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410119/
used to be that many people living through a terrible disaster were routinely given counselling to debrief. seems like a caring and kind thing to offer, until controlled trials said didn't help and may actually be harmful. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076399
australian researchers thought that maybe if teenagers were given a realistic pretend baby doll to look after, they would appreciate the responsibility and not get pregnant as much. in fact more of the teenagers who got the dolls got pregnant. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30384-1/fulltext
so; face masks. I am neither 'for' or 'against' . lab studies, modelling, physics, aerodynamics, epidemiology, all have something to contribute to working out what works. but in end need real world evidence of humans in pandemic to know if helps.
you may think it's so obviously a good thing and want to go ahead with home made device. no probs, fine, carry on. making a recommendation to a population is different. in the context of a gov who have made some decisions and will be making more. with economies to consider
if rely on something that does not work as well as you think it does, may have policy implications. if UK pop relies on something that they think will protect them more than it does, may have implications. Or it may not. we don't know.
what about other implications for lip reading people, deaf people, people who have cognitive impairment, what does it mean for communication, cohesion, policing, shaming in society more broadly? don't know. some v interesting qualitative studies broadly on this, thoughtful.
I think it should be ok to ask questions and interrogate claims. esp if suggestions of being made compulsory. because I've said this; accusations that I don't understand science/don't understand RCTs/limitations, am irresponsible, stupid, 'disappointing', etc: seriously?!
(also, I have clearly not had a 'top GP' prize, or certificate of being distinguished, etc, know your place, etc)
needs clarity over what the science says/doesn't and what opinion is. even more important if it's used as a political policy/ policed (in some way). fine to have opinions (I have lots.) bias is why we need trials, pragmatic real world trials: corona is not going away. alas.
