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

131–140 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#131

Post by kube-system »

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…

Rand knows this 100%, and I find it pretty fascinating from a creative perspective to watch him speak on these topics. He's a senator and an MD. He is well aware of how infection control works, but he also knows that his ultimate job as a politician is to make arguments that will resonate with his constituents. He knows exactly what landmines to throw into a sentence to make it mean one thing to an expert, but sound like the opposite when it's on the news. This is why he gets under the skin of people like Fauci so bad.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#132

Post by andybak »

matz1 wrote: post #122
andybak wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is your experience so different to mine?

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

I have to confess I suspect our experiences aren't that different. In the same way people can choose to be offended, people seem to have chosen to find this a huge imposition.

I actually really dislike wearing a mask and sometimes have a mild panicky feeling of suffocating and have to move to a window. (I get a similar thing snorkeling).

But it's no big deal. I'm a grown up and I deal with it because it's a good thing to do for other people. I understand some people might have really strong psychological reactions and that's why we have mask exemptions.

But I don't think that applies to the majority of the people that are claiming wearing a mask is a massive problem for them. I really don't.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#133

Post by eplanit »

rhino369 wrote: post #126
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.

"A lot of people think masks are very effective"

And they are free to make YouTube videos saying so. A US Senator, trained in medicine, is not allowed to opine otherwise, and is in fact banned from saying _anything_ on their platform for a week. It's punishing him in addition to silencing him. A lot of people find this very problematic.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#134

Post by dublin »

andybak wrote: post #116
leereeves wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or refuse, and enhance the herd immunity, which is the only thing that will ever really slow the virus in the first place. (Like the flu and colds, this virus will be with us forever and cannot be eradicated, because unlike smallpox and the like, this one has both animal and human hosts...)

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#135

Post by dublin »

crottypeter wrote: post #71
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…

> A cloth mask will not protect you against an aerosol I thought the reason we should all wear masks is to protect everyone else around us by preventing our breathing/speaking from creating clouds of airbourne droplets. I.E. it is supposed to filter the air you put out more than the air you breathe in.

You mean to prevent "speaking moistly"?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#136

Post by andybak »

dublin wrote: post #134
andybak wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but we're missing a crucial number Exactly. We're lacking a crucial number. So wear a mask.

Or refuse, and enhance the herd immunity, which is the only thing that will ever really slow the virus in the first place. (Like the flu and colds, this virus will be with us forever and cannot be eradicated, because unlike smallpox and the like, this one has both animal and human hosts...)

I rather think "let's go for herd immunity" is something we need to collectively decide. It's a huge decision and impacts everyone. Like many decisions with collective impact, we rightly restrict the rights of individuals to go their own way on it.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#137

Post by dublin »

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%…

Making all drivers wear helmets, or all cars and trucks have giant nerf bumpers would save lives, too, but like masks, these are ridiculous given the extremely small (though very grave) risks involved. Both wearing a mask and vaccination are only be moral if they are voluntary. (And that is especially true with a completely new kind of never-before-tried "vaccine"...)

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#138

Post by kube-system »

dublin wrote: post #129
ryandrake wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Scientific experts have never been confused about what the '95' in 'N95' stands for.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#139

Post by matz1 »

andybak wrote: post #132
matz1 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have to confess I suspect our experiences aren't that different. In the same way people can choose to be offended, people seem to have chosen to find this a huge imposition. I actually really dislike wearing a mask and sometimes have a mild panicky feeling of suffocating and have to move to a window. (I get a similar thing snorkeling). But it's no big deal. I'm a grown up and I deal with it because it's a good thin…

>But it's no big deal.

It's no big deal for you, fine. I acknowledge that but It is a big deal for me.

>I'm a grown up and I deal with it because it's a good thing to do for other people.

well not to me, when you wearing mask when interacting with me you are not doing a good thing for me.

I'm much prefer for you to not wear mask when you interact with me but still I wouldn't force you.

Its also one of the reason for me to not wear mask when interacting with other people, its a good thing to do for other people.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#140

Post by andybak »

matz1 wrote: post #139
andybak wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to confess I suspect our experiences aren't that different. In the same way people can choose to be offended, people seem to have chosen to find this a huge imposition. I actually really dislike wearing a mask and sometimes have a mild panicky feeling of suffocating and have to move to a window. (I get a similar thing snorkeling). But it's no big deal. I'm a grown up and I deal with it because it's a good thin…

>But it's no big deal. It's no big deal for you, fine. I acknowledge that but It is a big deal for me. >I'm a grown up and I deal with it because it's a good thing to do for other people. well not to me, when you wearing mask when interacting with me you are not doing a good thing for me. I'm much prefer for you to not wear mask when you interact with me but still I wouldn't force you. Its also one of the reason for…

> well not to me, when you wearing mask when interacting with me you are not doing a good thing for me.

Yes I am. I am reducing the chance of infection passing between us. The degree to which I'm reducing the chance is uncertain (which is the original point under discussion).

I think we probably won't get any further benefit from this discussion. I've lost patience with a lot of people over this. I find it slightly depressing that this has become the identity issue it has.

Post reply on HN