Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

axisofeasy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 345 posts

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

#231

Post by ceejayoz »

DanBC wrote: post #201
ping_pong wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When one says that "masks are not effective", it's literally the definition of "masks don't work." Please don't try to weasel out of it by trying to argue basic definitions of words. That's like Bill Clinton arguing over the definition of what "is" means to try to save himself. Just admit that you're wrong and move on. It's clear that the message in the early stages of the pandemic was that "all masks didn't work, bu…

> Since then, it has come out that masks are actually extremely effective in preventing spread. No it hasn't. Show me the research. > "all masks didn't work, but you should save it for the health care workers". The absurd contradiction It's not an absurd contradiction. A member of the public walks around and is only going to meet a few people with covid-19, and hopefully they are pre-symptomatic (because if they have…

> No it hasn't. Show me the research.

Here: https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-...

> With face masks, the chance of infection or transmission was 3% with a mask compared with 17% without a mask, a reduction of more than 80%. And for eye protection, the chance of infection or transmission was 6% with protection and 16% without.

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

#232

Post by ceejayoz »

DanBC wrote: post #230
ceejayoz wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really don't at this point: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > The use of face masks was protective for both health-care workers and people in the community exposed to infection, with both the frequentist and Bayesian analyses lending support to face mask use irrespective of setting. Our unadjusted analyses might, at first impression, suggest use of face masks in the community settin…

You know you've linked me to a pop-sci piece about a study that I've already linked several times in this thread? > However, the authors note that the findings on face masks and eye protection are based on limited evidence. So limited that this finding was "low confidence". And that's for optimal use of N95 masks, not for fluid resistant surgical masks or cloth masks. Here's what the actual study said: > From a polic…

The article links to The Lancet. I've edited and cite directly from the paper, and no, it's not "for optimal use of N95 masks". See my quoted segment.

Even the bit you're quoting says "face masks are associated with protection, even in non-health-care settings".

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

#233

Post by ksdale »

DanBC wrote: post #211
pythonaut_16 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for your claim that masks are less impactful than distancing?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomis…

Further down, under "Added value of this study," it says "Physical distancing of 1 m or more was associated with a much lower risk of infection, as was use of face masks (including N95 respirators or similar and surgical or similar masks [eg, 12–16-layer cotton or gauze masks]) and eye protection (eg, goggles or face shields)"

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

#234

Post by StuntPope »

crazygringo wrote: post #218
StuntPope wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Berenson isn't a libertarian, the guy who wrote the article (me), is. And I grapple with the dissonance between free market libertarian principles and big tech "take-it-or-leave-it" control over discourse all the time. As Voltaire says... "uncertainty is an uncomfortable position, but certainty is an absurd one". Every ideology has these complicated areas within them and you're either aware of them and grapple with i…

But the whole point of extreme political ideologies like libertarianism and anarchism is that they are dogmatic. They have simple answers to complex problems. If you're grappling with gray areas, then congrats! You now have a more nuanced understanding that brings you closer to center, and you're not libertarian anymore.

I would say that calling libertarianism an extremist ideology is a gross misunderstanding of it. My guess is everything you think you know about libertarianism, was what you were told by somebody who hates it.

Full-on anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, ok, that's a hard sell.

Libertarianism? It's basically "never initiate aggression" and "live and let live". That's about it. I don't know what's extreme about that.

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

#235

Post by ceejayoz »

DanBC wrote: post #226
aspenmayer wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But we have evidence about respiratory viruses and masks, and it all says they don't work. We even have the beginnings of evidence coming through for SARS-CoV-2. They got people who have covid to wear a mask and cough on a petri dish. Covid escaped the masks.

> But we have evidence about respiratory viruses and masks, and it all says they don't work.

What? Medical personnel regularly utilize surgical masks against respiratory viruses spread by droplets successfully.

They're less useful against aerosolized stuff like measles, but SARS-CoV-2 is primarily spread via droplet.

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

#237

Post by entropyneur »

I am all for private businesses' right to censor their platforms as they please. But let's consider why they do so. Amazon and others aren't banning "covid dissidents" because they are worried about people's health nor is it because of some evil conspiracy. The reason is simple and obvious: because they've determined it to be the best course of action PR-wise. Or in other words, it's because what the public wants.

And that is where it stars to rub me very, very wrong way. Just think about it. Not only the average Joe knows exactly how this totally novel global problem with a shit ton of unknown variables should be handled (that's par the course). But he's so certain of his knowledge that he wants anyone trying to voice a different opinion to get the treatment that was previously reserved only for obvious dangerous crazies like the nazis. To me this is the empirical proof that the slippery slope does exist, unfolding before our eyes.

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

#238

Post by DanBC »

ceejayoz wrote: post #232
DanBC wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know you've linked me to a pop-sci piece about a study that I've already linked several times in this thread? > However, the authors note that the findings on face masks and eye protection are based on limited evidence. So limited that this finding was "low confidence". And that's for optimal use of N95 masks, not for fluid resistant surgical masks or cloth masks. Here's what the actual study said: > From a polic…

The article links to The Lancet. I've edited and cite directly from the paper, and no, it's not "for optimal use of N95 masks". See my quoted segment. Even the bit you're quoting says "face masks are associated with protection, even in non-health-care settings".

> Even the bit you're quoting says "face masks are associated with protection, even in non-health-care settings".

What's the control group?

Here's what the paper says about the evidence:

> Further high-quality research, including randomised trials of the optimum physical distance and the effectiveness of different types of masks in the general population and for health-care workers' protection, is urgently needed.

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

#239

Post by lawnchair_larry »

pen2l wrote: 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 understand where you’re coming from but it still seems dangerous. There will come a point when we will not be allowed to discuss inconvenient facts or debate controversial and sensitive topics (some would argue we are already there), and the definition of what fits into that bucket will shift. A vocal enough contingent just has to declare something a “bad faith idea” and you’re done.

What’s worse is the new trend of digging up something you said/did that was of little societal impact at the time, but is now unforgivably offensive, and society punishing you retroactively under the new rules.

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

#240

Post by ceejayoz »

DanBC wrote: post #183
dougmany wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am always amused at how effective the There is no scientific evidence line is. That just means it has not been studied. No one has studied masks on this specific strain? It's new for crying out loud.

There is a lot of work on respiratory viruses and masks, and none of the RCTs can find a benefit of wearing masks. > No one has studied masks on this specific strain? It's new for crying out loud. Yes they have. Here's one where they take four patients who have covid-19 and fit them with masks and ask them to cough onto petri dishes. They find covid outside the masks. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

"This article has been retracted. See Notice of Retraction."

Yeah, maybe don't go around citing that one.

Post reply on HN