YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#111

Post by fighterpilot » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

contravariant wrote: post #97

fighterpilot wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't work? This article is claiming otherwise: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

It's quoting a whole lot of things, some of which are in support of cloth masks, but none of which are particularly conclusive. It's worth noting that one of the randomized trials mentioned in that article ended up not being able to prove any significant effect. [1] It apparently had some problems getting published. I've been unable to find the results of the larger trial by Christine Benn et al. [1]: https://www.acp…

It seems conclusive that cloth masks reduce the number of virus particles being inhaled and exhaled, and so theoretically they should work. See Fig 3.A here.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083

I understand we also want RCTs to show that they actually reduce infections in practice. But, I will note a few things here.

It's almost impossible to study via RCT whether their usage protects other people from infection, which is one of the goals of masks. The best we can do is go with our knowledge that it does block aerosols from being exhaled and use common sense to then assume that this means that it also will protect others from getting infected.

Also, it could be the case that while it may not prevent infection, it reduces the severity of the infection due to a much lower viral load being inhaled. This is a difficult question to study.

In all, we need to see larger studies done in locations where there's more cases. That one RCT in Denmark isn't enough.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#112

Post by Someone1234 » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

imnotreallynew wrote: post #64

What I find particularly funny about the mask conversation is that if you remember way back to March-July 2020, if you tried to buy a box of surgical face masks on Amazon, there was a large, bold warning in the top description that said “does not prevent the spread of viruses”. The reason for this was the FDA, which regulates masks, clearly held the position that face masks were for preventing transmission of large d…

So your point is that a federal agency got more data and updated its guidance inline with that data? That's what they're meant to do...

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#113

Post by darksaints » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #75

darksaints wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the above. The only mask that will stop you from getting covid are masks that will also stop you from breathing. Different masks have different effectiveness in different environments with different risk levels. Cloth masks may be inappropriate in some environments while being effective in others. Research has consistently shown that 3-point seatbelts are completely inadequate in auto racing environments when…

I'm not here to argue whether or not cloth masks are safe or not since I'm not a scientist. The point is that there's hardly a consensus and it seems wrong to ban someone who's skeptical and cites peer reviewed research.

Despite the fact that Rand Paul is being an absolute dunce about this, I agree. It is wrong to ban skepticism, and I see this as an overreaction, but not necessarily in a malicious sense. Because the stakes for humanity are pretty high and any time that happens, you're gonna get overreactions.

In sociopolitical subjects, links between humans are indirect and often can be strained and straw-grasping. With subjects like these, it is easy to find loads of research supporting both sides...because it's extremely hard to prove cause and effect in sociological scenarios. Examples: minimum wage and employment rates, drug use and crime rates, tax rates and tax-induced emigration, government spending and poverty, gun ownership and violence.

Epidemiology is not like that. Research methods are mature. Humans physiology is more uniform than human psychology. Cause and effect relationships can be strongly identified via experimental means. Peer review actually works reasonably and is generally not politicized.

And yet despite the maturity of the field and the strength of the research, we still have politicians saying that vaccines cause autism, that covid is no worse than a seasonal flu, and that masks don't work. So I'm gonna hold my pitchforks when people overreact to bad interpretations to peer reviewed science.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#114

Post by leereeves » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #106

h2odragon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Nope. Rudy isn't smart enough to know the difference. He sat on one of Crowder's shows and literally held up an LG and then said that it was one of the hard drives. Just watch this little link for a few seconds: https://youtu.be/GureRbH-_Xs?t=346 Now, what use would be shoving a Macbook drive into an LG computer?

That clip isn't the smoking gun you think it is. He doesn't claim that is Hunter's laptop; when asked if he's seen the pictures, he says "this is the hard drive they're on". It could simply be the laptop his copy of the pictures are on.

He probably employed a forensic technician to investigate the laptop, and said technician sent him a copy of the pictures.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#115

Post by andybak » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 4:11 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #58

andybak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> An imperfect mask is surely going to result in a borderline contacts with infection being non-infections. Not necessarily. The mask blocks the virus going both ways, so maybe only 10% of the virus particles get inside the mask, but 90% of those that would be exhaled also stay inside the mask. This is not an opinion on whether masks work, just an illustration that it's plausible they don't.

Haven't you just agreed with me?

The debate is whether they help by 0.001%, 99% or some number inbetween.

And until there's strong evidence then we're back to the precautionary principle (or as I like to put it "just shut-up and where your damn mask")

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#116

Post by andybak » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 4:12 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #110

elmalto wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Napkin math would be: 90% of infected person virus stays in 90% of virus does not get in for a healthy person So 1% (10% through * 10% through) of final particles will be inside the mask. Hence roughly 0.9% of particles (90% stays inside of the mask of the healthy person) would stick around by this logic Vs 100% of particles that could enter will enter without any sort of mask

Even for napkin math we'd need reasonably good approximations, but we're missing a crucial number (how many virus particles are normally exhaled?) and I don't know if 90% blockage is accurate either (I'm just using it as an example because other posts in this thread have used that number).

> but we're missing a crucial number

Exactly. We're lacking a crucial number. So wear a mask.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#117

Post by andybak » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 4:12 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #90

andybak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is your experience so different to mine?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#118

Post by andybak » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

chlodwig wrote: post #105

andybak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. It's a minor inconvenience at the grocery store. It's a major inconvenience to wear one at gyms. It's a major inconvenience with regards to socializing with friends (a core human need), I really hate not being able to read other people's facial expressions when I talk to them. It's a major inconvenience to require it at schools. It's horrible for kids not to be abl…

I think I captured most of that in my use of the word "usually".

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#119

Post by leereeves » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

andybak wrote: post #115

leereeves wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An imperfect mask is surely going to result in a borderline contacts with infection being non-infections. Not necessarily. The mask blocks the virus going both ways, so maybe only 10% of the virus particles get inside the mask, but 90% of those that would be exhaled also stay inside the mask. This is not an opinion on whether masks work, just an illustration that it's plausible they don't.

Haven't you just agreed with me? The debate is whether they help by 0.001%, 99% or some number inbetween. And until there's strong evidence then we're back to the precautionary principle (or as I like to put it "just shut-up and where your damn mask")

I agree with you in that I believe they work and, as a matter of personal choice, I followed the precautionary principle and wore a mask until I was vaccinated.

But I don't agree that "the precautionary principle" is sufficient justification for a government mandate. Clear evidence should be required to impose the mandate.

And my previous post was not agreeing with you; it implied that masks may work or may make things worse by trapping more virus particles inside the mask.

Another post here linked to a study that showed that certain kinds of masks can sometimes be worse than no mask, even ignoring the "trapping" factor, by actually increasing the droplet count in the air.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#120

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 4:15 PM UTC

danhak wrote: post #78

jacquesm wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how this works. You can only compare with the future that wasn't. People may decide all by themselves that wearing a mask is a good idea, mandate or not, and then there is the point that not all masks are created equal, which is the subject of this thread.

Is your argument that outcomes of different policy decisions cannot be compared across different jurisdictions?

Not without carefully controlling for all kinds of variables, demographics, geography, internal and external connectivity and so on. No two areas are closely alike in all those respects.