Live data from Hacker News

Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

axisofeasy.com

131–140 of 345 posts

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#131
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Remember what the official word was for all too long: masks don't work, but save them for health workers. Who said masks don't work? What I recall people saying is: * most masks provide marginal protection to the wearer * the masks that provide effective protection should be saved for those in situations where they need them (and can be knowledgeably used) * most people probably don't need those masks There's a wor…

The CDC and WHO both at various times recommended against the general public wearing masks. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/13/21214114/media-coronavi... This advice was wrong. It is not just sick people that benefit from wearing masks. It is not true that people are flattening that into "masks don't work". Masks don't work was repeated many, many times by these organizations. Here's an example: https://www.cidrap.…

The article from U. of Minnesota:

"We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because:

"There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

"Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection

"We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers.

"Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year. Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.

"Surgical masks likely have some utility as source control (meaning the wearer limits virus dispersal to another person) from a symptomatic patient in a healthcare setting to stop the spread of large cough particles and limit the lateral dispersion of cough particles. They may also have very limited utility as source control or PPE in households."

Note the word in the first sentence: "requiring".

The article then goes on to describe filter fit and efficiency.

"These studies demonstrate that cloth or homemade masks will have very low filter efficiency (2% to 38%). Medical masks are made from a wide range of materials, and studies have found a wide range of filter efficiency (2% to 98%), with most exhibiting 30% to 50% efficiency.6-12"

"In sum, given the paucity of information about their performance as source control in real-world settings, along with the extremely low efficiency of cloth masks as filters and their poor fit, there is no evidence to support their use by the public or healthcare workers to control the emission of particles from the wearer."

As well as surgical masks...

"There is no evidence that surgical masks worn by healthcare workers are effective at limiting the emission of small particles or in preventing contamination of wounds during surgery.

"There is moderate evidence that surgical masks worn by patients in healthcare settings can lower the emission of large particles generated during coughing and limited evidence that small particle emission may also be reduced."

And N95 respirators...

"In summary, N95 FFRs on patients will not be effective and may not be appropriate, particularly if they have respiratory illness or other underlying health conditions. Given the current extreme shortages of respirators needed in healthcare, we do not recommend the use of N95 FFRs in public or household settings."

And in conclusion:

"While this is not an exhaustive review of masks and respirators as source control and PPE, we made our best effort to locate and review the most relevant studies of laboratory and real-world performance to inform our recommendations. Results from laboratory studies of filter and fit performance inform and support the findings in real-world settings.

"Cloth masks are ineffective as source control and PPE, surgical masks have some role to play in preventing emissions from infected patients, and respirators are the best choice for protecting healthcare and other frontline workers, but not recommended for source control. These recommendations apply to pandemic and non-pandemic situations.

"Leaving aside the fact that they are ineffective, telling the public to wear cloth or surgical masks could be interpreted by some to mean that people are safe to stop isolating at home. It's too late now for anything but stopping as much person-to-person interaction as possible.

"Masks may confuse that message and give people a false sense of security. If masks had been the solution in Asia, shouldn't they have stopped the pandemic before it spread elsewhere?"

All of this is backed up with a goodly stack of references. Which part do you consider dead wrong, and based on what?

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#132
post #3

Never thought we'd see wide support for book restriction or censorship again. Are people not reading history or considering the second order effects? Heck, you don't even have to go back that far. Just look how badly "official sources" handled Covid-19. For example, remember what the official word was, even despite being a self-contradiction: masks don't work, but save them for health workers. You may say that's a no…

> Remember what the official word was for all too long: masks don't work, but save them for health workers. Who said masks don't work? What I recall people saying is: * most masks provide marginal protection to the wearer * the masks that provide effective protection should be saved for those in situations where they need them (and can be knowledgeably used) * most people probably don't need those masks There's a wor…

Something that I think is important about the concept of free speech is that journalists and authors shouldn't be attempting to worry about the first and second order effects of their writings. They can't possibly correctly predict them, because people can't predict the future.

Just take all of your thoughts on digital books on Kindle, switch them to a collection of physical publishers who have a monopoly on printing presses, and ask yourself if you still think it's ok.

What if it's your opinion next time that is censored?

An Australian doctor discovered (about 20 years ago I believe) that a species of bacterium played a huge role in peptic ulcers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall

He was censored, shunned from the medical establishment, and laughed at for years. He was correct.

Why do you place so much blind faith in these institutions to a point where you just KNOW it will never be you being censored? Are you a uniquely enlightened human being who has never had an idea that the majority of the people in the room completely disagreed with?

The medical establishment was censoring Barry Marshall because they were worried about the first and second order effects of people trying to treat ulcers with antibiotics. It was dangerous, they said.

How long before the guns get turned on you, me, or others?

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#133
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Who said masks don't work? What I recall people saying is: > * most masks provide marginal protection to the wearer > * the masks that provide effective protection should be saved for those in situations where they need them (and can be knowledgeably used) > * most people probably don't need those masks" yup, moreover, masks are marginal on top of other measures, most notably distancing. masks can make a differenc…

It may be similarly dogmatic, but there are degrees of correctness, and a world where everyone wears masks all the time is one with with much less coronavirus than one where no one except medical professionals wear them.

thank you for demonstrating the exact illusion of safety that's so pervasive around mask-wearing. no, masks are marginal, that's the point, they work at the margins.

it's the distancing that's doing the work of "much less coronavirus". for your statement to be relatively true, we'd need to live in a world with no lockdowns and no distancing.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#134
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an instance of what I described in my above comment. "STOP BUYING MASKS" is not "Masks don't work," especially given the rest of the context of the statement where he's saying they're important to protect high-exposure roles healthcare providers. Which means he's also saying they work. "They are not effective in preventing the general public" might be reasonably interpreted as "masks don't work", but given th…

Here's an extended quote of his, found on Snopes fact check. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/surgeon-general-against-ma... > One of the things [the general public] shouldn’t be doing is going out and buying masks … It has not been proven to be effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus amongst the general public … Folks who don’t know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot, and actually ca…

I'm pretty sure all of that is still true. In some cases, for some people, wearing a mask can be neutral or even net-negative. Maybe we learned enough to find that for the population at large wearing masks is better than not, but it's still a trade off.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the context. My writing focus has been on big tech, censorship, deplatforming and related topics and the last 4 or 5 articles I've posted here were flagged despite being heavily upvoted and making the front page. I can see people flagging it if it nobody comments, nobody upvotes it and it's clear nobody is interested or finds it germane. Ok. But it always seemed as if people were using the flag function as…

I think it's a hard call. I've seen a lot of articles recently that are interesting and germane, yet clearly written from the perspective of fighting some political battle. I think it's appropriate to flag such posts even if a lot of people upvote them.

There is a really good podcast out yesterday with Bill Fleckenstein on QuothTheRaven, and he talked about exactly this:

The idea disagreeing with official discourse is somehow "political". It shouldn't be. But everything is so polarized lately that disagreeing with the methodologies for collating case fatalities, for example, or worrying about the second-order effects of the lockdowns, suddenly that makes you "Pro-Trump", or if you agree with all of the above then you're a progressive. It's insane.

I blame the mainstream media for most of that dynamic. Can't we have a simple pandemic without the entire thing becoming a political football?

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#136
post #3

Never thought we'd see wide support for book restriction or censorship again. Are people not reading history or considering the second order effects? Heck, you don't even have to go back that far. Just look how badly "official sources" handled Covid-19. For example, remember what the official word was, even despite being a self-contradiction: masks don't work, but save them for health workers. You may say that's a no…

> Remember what the official word was for all too long: masks don't work, but save them for health workers. Who said masks don't work? What I recall people saying is: * most masks provide marginal protection to the wearer * the masks that provide effective protection should be saved for those in situations where they need them (and can be knowledgeably used) * most people probably don't need those masks There's a wor…

You are being a revisionist. The Surgeon General himself said that masks don't work.

https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...

Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!

They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#137
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDC and WHO both at various times recommended against the general public wearing masks. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/13/21214114/media-coronavi... This advice was wrong. It is not just sick people that benefit from wearing masks. It is not true that people are flattening that into "masks don't work". Masks don't work was repeated many, many times by these organizations. Here's an example: https://www.cidrap.…

The article from U. of Minnesota: " We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because: " There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission " Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection " We need…

Among other things, this is obvious BS:

> "There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

Given that the coronavirus appeared only a few months ago, "no scientific evidence" doesn't mean much because very little research exists on the subject. Also, there is no harm in caution.

Interestingly, they keep suggesting social distancing, which doesn't have much scientific support, either. It's just one of those common sense things.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm generally confused why you are being downvoted for pointing this out.

HN should really get rid of downvotes. They only play one role: To alter how others perceive a post I am unfortunately immediately biased against a post that is greyed out. Greyed posts are increasingly just a different political view rather than an objectively wrong statement. If a post is truly problematic, there is a flag option. Let the cream rise to the top, but don't tell people how to think.

I tend to agree. If we're going to go meta, use downvotes as a sorting mechanism so the stuff the community thinks is most valuable winds up at the top, but remove the greying.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#139
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least two of those links had nuanced reasons that matched the parent's remarks. One even literately had a three point explanation: * There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission * Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection * We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-ris…

> * We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers. Do hospitals get their stocks from hardware stores in boxes of ten? As much as I've seen, they buy from large distributors who prioritize government agencies and often don't serve individual consumers at all.

Many sent people to hardware stores etc to buy masks.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#140
post #2

After a half hour long conversation with my neighbor last week of him trying to convince me that Bill Gates is behind coronavirus, please, for the love of our future, continue banning information that is blatantly put up on a bad faith basis. It's exhausting to see my mom and dad succumb to a new conspiracy every other day. I don't see how else we can curb this other than for the tech companies to start aggressively…

I can think of nothing that epitomizes privilege more than living in a society with free speech, and being so willing to embrace censorship of ideas, even when they are clearly dumb or even dangerous.

Democracy was a dangerous idea one time.

I get your exhaustion. My dad succumbs to dumb shit all the time. A lot of it is on the mainstream corporate news channels.

Currently, there is some kind of information you and I are both succumbing to coming from "legitimate" sources that you, me, and the authorities trust. The Iraq WMD fiasco was being reported by the New York Times.

How arrogant is it to think that you are the enlightened one who doesn't get misinformed, while everyone else are ignorant rubes who have to be spoon fed curated information?

Was your original conception of the Covid 19 death rate accurate? Mine wasn't. I was dramatically overestimating it. So were the news sources I was reading. If only somebody could have censored them before I was misinformed like the ignorant rube I am. Where were you to protect me?

Post reply on HN