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

121–130 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#121

Post by mensetmanusman »

jtbayly wrote: post #102
mensetmanusman wrote: post #8

‘masks’ is about as vague as ‘food’ There are good and bad masks, just as there is good and bad food. A cloth mask will not protect you against an aerosol (note: am a researcher who has seen the electron microscopy images proving this), that is why N95s are mandated with no beards in any ISO work environment where you are subjected to aerosol risk. The inability of public dialog on this nuance is just a reflection of…

> The inability of public dialog on this nuance is just a reflection of our poor scientific education. This is the only part of your comment I disagree with. “Science” has very little sway in cultural debates with either side.

Hmmm. maybe. I just wish CSPAN would show politicians showing histograms of effectiveness with various types of masks, show where covid is, show where aerosols fit, talk about viral load, talk about statistics per minute (e.g. don’t stay an hour indoors with someone with covid using a cloth mask, use an N95, 3 minutes might be okay).

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#122

Post by matz1 »

andybak wrote: post #117
matz1 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Because not everyone the same, do you expect everyone to have same experience ?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#123

Post by andybak »

leereeves wrote: post #119
andybak wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thin…

> But I don't agree that "the precautionary principle" is sufficient justification for a government mandate.

It is in many other realms. Why raise the bar for this?

This whole thing feels like whatever the equivalent is of "virtue signalling". Why have some groups decided to be so stubborn about this particular thing? It smacks of some identity thing.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#124

Post by ryandrake »

kube-system wrote: post #62
cvwright wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I were looking into traveling from the US to Europe this summer, if the borders had opened up earlier. At the time, Germany was not allowing cloth masks on public transport. N95, surgical masks, or stay home. So here we have a sitting US senator being censored for agreeing with the German health authorities. WTF?!?

If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough " he could have said that. But he's a senator. His statement was a dog whistle to his base. They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking. The word "prevent" is a red herring -- nothing is 100% -- the goal is to decrease infection, not prevent it.

The phrases "doesn't work" and "doesn't prevent" have become staples of the COVID disinformation toolkit. Anything that is not exactly 100% effective transforms into "doesn't work" in the narrative. Educated experts will never say something is 100% effective, so this is always an easy way for detractors to "prove" that the experts agree XYZ doesn't work.

EDIT: Other examples: Some people have gotten pregnant while on birth control, therefore birth control "doesn't work". Some people wearing seat belts still die in car crashes, therefore seat belts "don't work". This is a tried and true misinformation tactic.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#125

Post by danhak »

jacquesm wrote: post #120
danhak wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you similarly feel that comparisons across different populations are invalid for arguing the affirmative?

e.g. arguments like "we should try masking / UBI / $15 minimum wage / free healthcare / universal pre-k because it worked well in ${location}" are also "not how this works" because we can "only compare with the future that wasn't?"

Do such arguments need to control for the infinite number of confounding variables before having any value?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#126

Post by rhino369 »

vlovich123 wrote: post #53

Took a bit of searching to find Paul’s statement where he claims to have support from studies. Does anyone know which studies these are? > A Danish study of 6000 participants found that wearing a surgical mask did not significantly reduce a person's risk of COVID-19 infection, compared to the risks facing those who did not wear masks. > And a Vietnamese study of 1600 participants found that cloth masks allow for 97%…

One mechanism could be that masks cause a false sense of security that increases risk overall—even if each interaction is slightly less risky.

A lot of people think masks are very effective.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#127

Post by MisterBastahrd »

leereeves wrote: post #114
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You really thing Giuliani is intelligent enough to browse through a mac disk image using a PC given all the rest of the absolute utter nonsense he's been spewing over the past year?

I have no doubt that somehow Republicans got their hands on some of Hunter Biden's data, but the story they gave is idiotic, the person they chose to promote it is a loon, and overall this was nothing more than a political smear campaign because Trump's people were afraid of Biden and thought they could Benghazi him.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#128

Post by Veen »

kube-system wrote: post #89
Veen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Are cloth masks any good? CDC says yes. BMJ says maybe, if you get the right masks. France says no and you should be wearing medical masks. DANMASK-19 says less than 50% effective and no significant difference in infections among populations who wear and don't wear masks. Who's a fellow to believe?

- https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n432

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#129

Post by dublin »

ryandrake wrote: post #124
kube-system wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough " he could have said that. But he's a senator. His statement was a dog whistle to his base. They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking. The word "prevent" is a red herring -- nothing is 100% -- the goal is to decrease infection, not prevent it.

The phrases "doesn't work" and "doesn't prevent" have become staples of the COVID disinformation toolkit. Anything that is not exactly 100% effective transforms into "doesn't work" in the narrative. Educated experts will never say something is 100% effective, so this is always an easy way for detractors to "prove" that the experts agree XYZ doesn't work. EDIT: Other examples: Some people have gotten pregnant while on…

Even the pores in an N95 mask are not small enough to prevent viral transmission, so the actual science says your magic mask talisman is voodoo bullshit.

People are even starting to do their own tests to show the impact of mask mandates on children, who have never been at significant risk from this virus, anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul5E5BUrII4

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#130

Post by cvwright »

ryandrake wrote: post #124
kube-system wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough " he could have said that. But he's a senator. His statement was a dog whistle to his base. They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking. The word "prevent" is a red herring -- nothing is 100% -- the goal is to decrease infection, not prevent it.

The phrases "doesn't work" and "doesn't prevent" have become staples of the COVID disinformation toolkit. Anything that is not exactly 100% effective transforms into "doesn't work" in the narrative. Educated experts will never say something is 100% effective, so this is always an easy way for detractors to "prove" that the experts agree XYZ doesn't work. EDIT: Other examples: Some people have gotten pregnant while on…

From "Follow the science" to "Who cares if it works or not?" in 17 short months...
Post reply on HN