I'm not sure why. The initial advice was based on years of experience and knowledge. The subsequent changes appear to be entirely due to 'things are bad, we must do something'. Yes, there could be significant new information that also justifies that change, but in the absence of that - and there is a distinct absence of that in this case, despite the repeated claims to the contrary - then it is fair to assume that the conclusions reached when not in the middle of a crisis were probably better.
It's even worse than that - Sweden, an unusual example of a country which has followed the conventional wisdom, has been accused of mounting an 'experiment', which is claimed to have 'failed' every time they see a case increase (ignoring that they are still faring far better than many countries with lockdowns).
Hardly anybody in politics or the media is pointing out that the whole lockdowns-and-restrictions strategy is the 'experiment' (it goes against all previous pandemic plans), and despite the stats showing that countries which have followed this do no better (and often worse) than those which don't, nobody points out that it is this 'experiment' which has demonstrably 'failed'. And the damage caused by it is already considerable and certain to increase a lot more in the coming months. But for most governments who have followed this route, it's now far too late to chance track without massive loss of credibility, so they continue with their highly damaging strategy.
Why? The initial advice was based on many years of experience. Suddenly this was all thrown in the bin, coincidentally at the time when they were attempting to cajole people back to work.
It also seems pretty logical to me that, having spent the first half of last year being told not to touch the face, we then are told to put on something which is essentially a germ receptacle, for which it’s all-nigh impossible outside of a sterile medical setting to comply with all the associated requirements for its correct use.
Then there’s the psychological issue that some people seem to feel that masks are a substitute for social distancing, which was never intended to be the case except in situations where social distancing couldn’t be achieved - eg a crowded peak time train. The scientists have consistently remained of the opinion that social distancing is far more valuable, yet elements of the population seem far more fixated on masks. Apart from Biden, there never seems to have been much of a suggestion that masks are any more useful than that they “might have a small benefit in certain situations”.
There are fair comments in there, and I agree that the "something must be done" mentality has been and still is an issue. In particular, though I broadly agree with the current policy approach as a necessary evil, I share
@bramling's severe dislike for the way that some have fixed on the single measure of mask wearing as all important, and have lost sense of proportion in the process. I also agree that it has a significant effect on many peoples' mental health, and that the impact on education is serious.
However, I find the desire to use Sweden as a comparator troubling given it's poor performance comparative with relatively similar Nordic neighbours. I also take issue with the idea that the current measures throw away epidemiological thinking and experience given that the robust use of contact tracing, isolation of possible contacts, and preventative mask wearing has formed a key part of the relative success of places like Taiwan, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia.
In that context, I stand by my observation that I find it surprising that positions outlined almost a year ago are being treated as somehow definitive, and changes since then are being ignored.
