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

151–160 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#151

Post by andybak »

matz1 wrote: post #141
andybak wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 d…

>Yes I am. I am reducing the chance of infection passing between us. No, you think you are doing good for me but reducing the chance of infection passing is not a concern for me at all so its not doing any good for me. >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.…

> but reducing the chance of infection passing is not a concern for me at all

You've lost me here. Really? Is this the part where I discover you have a completely different view on the whole topic and this discussion was pointless from the beginning?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#152

Post by chlodwig »

kube-system wrote: post #104
chlodwig wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bein…

Pregnancy is boolean. A person's viral load is not a boolean value. The umbrella is a better comparison. My umbrella doesn't prevent 100% of the rain from coming in contact with me. This is good enough that the umbrella is still standard practice.

Are you referring to the theory that the severity of covid has a dose-response relationship with the infectious inoculum? It's an interesting theory, but I think it is far from proven. It's a shame that it's not studied, because if true it might actually make sense to just give everyone a very small infectious inoculum as a form of vaccination.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#153

Post by tzs »

lsllc wrote: post #73
danhak wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why haven't we seen significantly better outcomes in states with mask mandates vs. those without?

As a single data point: despite a universal mask mandate that was enacted early on (May 6th 2020) along with a very high compliance, Massachusetts had the 3rd highest COVID death rate in the US (as of Aug 9): https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi...

A little over 20% of Massachusetts deaths occurred before May 6th, 2020. Another 20% occurred in the 3-4 weeks immediately ofter which are likely largely attributable to people who got COVID before early May.

If you compare Massachusetts deaths after that point to other states they come out somewhere near the middle.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#154

Post by gibba999 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #23
gibba999 wrote: post #13

This seems exceptionally problematic. I absolutely think everyone should use masks, but the science is clearly not in on the effectiveness of cloth masks. It's a valid area of discussion. My own opinion is that everyone should use N95-equivalent masks, but others are entitled to their opinions too. We have democratic and civic processes to decide what should be mandated, what should be recommended, what should be dis…

> Simply shutting people up convinces no one I mean, effectively shutting up one side of a discussion will surely convince most people to agree with the side being heard. This just isn't effective (yet?).

No. It doesn't.

We try this over and over. Racism is an even bigger example. You go from public views to closeted views. Closeted views are usually more harmful. I've been in openly racist environments and in ones with closet racism. Open racists are sometimes easy to ignore, often easy to circumvent, and in some cases, possible to convince. Closeted racists are much more subversive.

You can see the same effects in countries with totalitarian religious regimes, where the religion comes off behind closed doors.

People pretending to follow public health measures when they know they're being watched is a worst-case scenario -- at that point, you can't even do studies on what works.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#155

Post by kube-system »

chlodwig wrote: post #152
kube-system wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pregnancy is boolean. A person's viral load is not a boolean value. The umbrella is a better comparison. My umbrella doesn't prevent 100% of the rain from coming in contact with me. This is good enough that the umbrella is still standard practice.

Are you referring to the theory that the severity of covid has a dose-response relationship with the infectious inoculum? It's an interesting theory, but I think it is far from proven. It's a shame that it's not studied, because if true it might actually make sense to just give everyone a very small infectious inoculum as a form of vaccination.

The infectious dose of viruses is usually not (never?) a single particle. Depending on the virus, it may be tens or hundreds of particles required to infect a person. We don't know an exact number for COVID, but we know that it's likely some number that's greater than one.

Whatever that number is, if we limit the number of particles in the air, we decrease the statistical probability that a person will come in contact to a number of particles exceeding that number.

It's a "solution to pollution is dilution" issue.

> it might actually make sense to just give everyone a very small infectious inoculum as a form of vaccination.

The biggest issue with this, as I understand, is straddling the line between causing an immune response and hurting the patient. There are live vaccine viruses, but most (all?) attenuate the virus to prevent the latter.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#156

Post by chlodwig »

kube-system wrote: post #147
chlodwig wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it disinformation to say "the rythmn method is not an effective form of birth control"? Or is it disinformation to say, "the rythmn method is an effective form of birth control"?

Context and intent is important. The CDC describes that method as "Least Effective". https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/p... If we had no other method, then it might be reasonable to call it effective, in comparison to doing nothing. Given that better options exist, it is not very reasonable to call it effective without qualification. If someone chooses to intentionally reduce a conversation t…

If someone chooses to intentionally reduce a conversation to an "effective/ineffective" dichotomy to deliberately mislead or obscure conversations, then it might be disinformation. Disinformation can consist entirely of factual statements.

Actually, a good case for banning ALL discussion of mask effectiveness on Twitter as being disinformation, since the character limit basically forces turning discussion into simplified dichotomy.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#157

Post by goalieca »

fighterpilot wrote: post #111
contravariant wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

Vaccines work really well, so well that we can show benefit even when confounded by hundreds of other variables both known and unknown. Obviously the universal mask mandate has not had such a strong success and it becomes really hard/impossible to measure effectiveness in the face of all these other confounding variables.

Edit: there is a lot of pseudo-science on all these matters motivated by biases.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#158

Post by kube-system »

chlodwig wrote: post #156
kube-system wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context and intent is important. The CDC describes that method as "Least Effective". https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/p... If we had no other method, then it might be reasonable to call it effective, in comparison to doing nothing. Given that better options exist, it is not very reasonable to call it effective without qualification. If someone chooses to intentionally reduce a conversation t…

If someone chooses to intentionally reduce a conversation to an "effective/ineffective" dichotomy to deliberately mislead or obscure conversations, then it might be disinformation. Disinformation can consist entirely of factual statements. Actually, a good case for banning ALL discussion of mask effectiveness on Twitter as being disinformation, since the character limit basically forces turning discussion into simpli…

"deliberately" is the key word. Brevity for the sake of expeditiousness or practicality is different than brevity for the sake of deception or ulterior motive.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#159

Post by lp0_on_fire »

b0sk wrote: post #74
underseacables wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Therefore they should lose sec 230 protections.

Losing sec 230 protections would mean more ban-hammer for lying politicians (about elections, vaccines etc.)

I'm fine with that. It would create an even playing field in theory and that's a hell of a lot better than what we have right now which is some politicans getting to lie with impunity and others having their content removed for wrongthink.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#160

Post by lp0_on_fire »

andybak wrote: post #140
matz1 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 d…

Sounds to me like you're the one who has made it an identity issue.
Post reply on HN