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

YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#81

Post by fighterpilot »

endisneigh wrote: post #65
fighterpilot wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A cloth mask will not protect you against an aerosol "In unpublished work, Linsey Marr, an environmental engineer at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, and her colleagues found that even a cotton T-shirt can block half of inhaled aerosols and almost 80% of exhaled aerosols measuring 2 µm across. Once you get to aerosols of 4–5 µm, almost any fabric can block more than 80% in both directions, she says." "Benn worked with…

On the other hand some researchers think cloth masks, specifically gaiter types, are worse than nothing. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 > A bigger droplet scatters more light than a smaller droplet. This insight is important to interpret the result of the neck gaiter. The neck gaiter has a larger transmission (110%; see Fig. 3A) than the control trial. We attribute this increase to the neck gai…

That study shows that the large majority of the cloth masks tested were much better than nothing. See Fig 3.A.

The only mask that was worse than nothing was the Neck Gaiter, but the difference was both clinically small as well as statistically insignificant.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#82

Post by dannyz »

Obviously nobody wants YouTube to be the arbiter of truth, but this whole situation has just become ridiculous. We have an elected senator spreading misinformation, perhaps willfully, perhaps not. All of the current evidence suggests that even cloth mask wearing reduces the virus spread (https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#sec-22). A cloth mask may not prevent infection for yourself, but if you are infected it will reduce the risk of transmission for everyone around you. This is why we need mandates.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#83

Post by endisneigh »

swashboon wrote: post #26
corndoge wrote: post #3

> YouTube indicated that examples of the offending content in the video included the line: “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.” > It also included the quote: “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.” Regardless of what you think about YouTube's misinformation policy, I don't think this i…

Except they are effective. They are not as effective as a N95 mask but all scientific data shows they are still effective and reducing transmission rate in a population.

Are [gaiter masks] effective?

On the other hand some researchers think cloth masks, specifically gaiter types, are worse than nothing. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083

> A bigger droplet scatters more light than a smaller droplet. This insight is important to interpret the result of the neck gaiter. The neck gaiter has a larger transmission (110%; see Fig. 3A) than the control trial. We attribute this increase to the neck gaiter dispersing larger droplets into several smaller droplets, therefore increasing the droplet count. The histogram of the binary diameter for the neck gaiter supports this theory (see fig. S5).

---

disclosure: I think people should wear masks, even gaiter types. My point is that skepticism shouldn't necessarily be banned. Saying a mask works or doesn't is an incredibly complicated thing and more probabilistic than anything else.

If the question is presented as whether or not a mask would guarantee you being protected from COVID-19 particles, then the answer is much closer for "no" than "yes" for non-KN95/N95 masks.

If the question is whether they offer "some protection" then the answer is basically yes as long as you have anything in front of your face.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#84

Post by h2odragon »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #60
thaumasiotes wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seeing platforms control the narrative to this extent is truly fascinating. I never thought it would be as overt as it is. Remember the Hunter Biden's laptop story?

You mean the one where Rudy Giuliani sat in front of a camera with a "Macbook" purported to be Hunter Biden's even though it was an LG and ole Rudy just wasn't smart enough to know the difference?

> sat in front of a camera with a "Macbook" purported to be Hunter Biden's

I heard they'd been provided with a copy of the hard drive; and have not seen an assertion that they had anything more or claimed to.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#85

Post by endisneigh »

fighterpilot wrote: post #81
endisneigh wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand some researchers think cloth masks, specifically gaiter types, are worse than nothing. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 > A bigger droplet scatters more light than a smaller droplet. This insight is important to interpret the result of the neck gaiter. The neck gaiter has a larger transmission (110%; see Fig. 3A) than the control trial. We attribute this increase to the neck gai…

That study shows that the large majority of the cloth masks tested were much better than nothing. See Fig 3.A. The only mask that was worse than nothing was the Neck Gaiter, but the difference was both clinically small as well as statistically insignificant.

I'm talking about and referred to [gaiter type] masks specifically.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#86

Post by evgeniysharapov »

One can look at it as what's the null hypothesis. Presumably it should be "masks DO NOT work". But for whatever reason, media, tech, politicians, doctors chose opposite as a null hypothesis - "Masks DO work" shifting the burden of proof. Neither has been proven though. There were studies, e.g. DENMARK-19, etc. but after this became a political and ideological issue it seems no one interested to find the truth to the question "do masks work in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses". Notice that there's also question - what does it mean "work", let's say it reduces number of viral particles but that reduction has little effect on transmission, it should mean it doesn't work.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#87

Post by chlodwig »

ALittleLight wrote: post #31
makomk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it really doesn't seem all that plausible that cloth masks do much at this point. Not only was there never good evidence for them working, the best ones only block something like 90% of virus-bearing particles. To put this in context current estimates seem to be that people infected with Delta produce 100-1000x the amount of virus that previous variants did; the effect of mask wearing is absolutely miniscule co…

How is blocking X% of the virus particles less impactful if there's more of them? Fewer particles admitted means reduced chance of infection, no? Always better to less virus particles than more.

Fewer particles admitted means reduced chance of infection, no?

The thing to keep in mind is that blocking 50% of the particles does not mean a 50% reduction in infection. It may mean a 50% reduction in infection -- or it may mean a basically zero percent reduction. It depends on the exposure.

Say that in a particular covid-filled room you have a 50% chance of being infected after 5 minutes and a 99.9% chance of being infected after an hour. Under a simple model, if you wear a mask that blocks half the particles, your chance of getting coronavirus in 5 minutes would be reduced to 25%, but your chance of getting it after an hour would be 97%. So if cloth mask is your primary defense against covid, you are eventually going to get covid if you are trying to live anything close to a normal life. Blocking 50% of particles is like wearing an condom that only blocks 50% of the sperm or an umbrella that blocks only 50% of the rain.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#88

Post by dantheman »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #44

Yeah, this is screwed-up. I have been vaccinated, and I always still wear a mask when shopping or otherwise indoors. But, I don't have the right to tell other people what to do, and YouTube does not have the right to "cancel" an elected senator who is both a doctor and has had covid-19. I think that the Senator is probably wrong about masks, but I support his right to speak his mind. Corporations that own public foru…

Youtube most definitely has the right to determine what they're going to show on their platform. You may not agree with their choices, but it's their right.

It is easy and cheap to host videos online that can be easily linked to and viewed by anyone.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#89

Post by kube-system »

Veen wrote: post #43
ALittleLight wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is blocking X% of the virus particles less impactful if there's more of them? Fewer particles admitted means reduced chance of infection, no? Always better to less virus particles than more.

But almost no one is wearing the best sort of mask. They're wearing porous cloth masks that stop next to nothing.

> next to nothing.

Not true.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#90

Post by matz1 »

andybak wrote: post #36
makomk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it really doesn't seem all that plausible that cloth masks do much at this point. Not only was there never good evidence for them working, the best ones only block something like 90% of virus-bearing particles. To put this in context current estimates seem to be that people infected with Delta produce 100-1000x the amount of virus that previous variants did; the effect of mask wearing is absolutely miniscule co…

I don't follow this reasoning. An imperfect mask is surely going to result in a borderline contacts with infection being non-infections. The debate is "by how much" and without really clear evidence to the contrary, the precautionary principle wins. Wearing masks is usually only a minor inconvenience. I'm gobsmacked how it's become such a battleground.

>Wearing masks is usually only a minor inconvenience

Maybe it is minor inconvenience for you but for me its a huge inconvenience.

Post reply on HN