361–370 of 803 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Should seatbelts be a personal choice too? Do they infringe on your "liberty"? Yes and Yes. Now you get it.
Your ignorance is disgusting. A Darwin award awaits you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every year, ~647,000 Americans die from heart disease alone. Even if the COVID death numbers aren't over-inflated, I guarantee you that if I were to time-travel to 2019 and ask you if you think that it would be worth precipitating a global supply chain disruption, missed schooling and medical appointments for children around the globe, both first and third world, and the greatest erosion in civil liberties in Western…
600k deaths after huge mitigations. Without any mitigation’s is it 3 million in the US dead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is misinformation. Masks (cloth or otherwise) were meant to reduce infectiousness, not completely prevent the possibility of infection. Masks (cloth or otherwise) do in fact reduce infectiousness. The misinformation is the implication that masks are pointless because you can still get infected. The point of masks is to get the probability of spreading it down by some multiple, not to be a personal not-my-problem-a…
Saying cloth masks are effective in the context of (K)N95 masks is even worse misinformation. Even the CDC's website on masks points out you should really be using (K)N95's, and that cloth masks are completely ineffective when wet, which they get after 15 minutes or so of breathing through them. The science on cloth masks says they work, but only shortly and just barely. Rand Paul is closer to the truth by saying the…
Better masks are obviously better.
> completely ineffective when wet,
As far as I know this is not correct. I remember to have read a study showing quite well that even a wet cloth mask(1) still contains the spread of aerosols surprisingly well. Sure it's far worse then a medical mask of any kinda but still a surprisingly high improvement compared to the no-mask scenario.
> which they get after 15 minutes or so of breathing through them.
In my personal experience this is far from correct, through this depends on the definition of "wet" and the weather.
(1): As long as they are not made of a specific kind of material, which e.g. is often used for bicycle masks and sometimes for scarfs which might from the get to go make thinks worse by splitting the aerosols into smaller lighter ones without stopping them at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably has something to do with the 600k+ dead Americans.
Every year, ~647,000 Americans die from heart disease alone. Even if the COVID death numbers aren't over-inflated, I guarantee you that if I were to time-travel to 2019 and ask you if you think that it would be worth precipitating a global supply chain disruption, missed schooling and medical appointments for children around the globe, both first and third world, and the greatest erosion in civil liberties in Western…
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. Tech companies now silence politicians unilaterally, while governments made up of the same politicians do nothing to stop the widespread flow of toxic misinformation on tech platforms. So, who is really in charge?
At some point, the adults need to be in charge. I for one applaud YouTube for taking this step, because it's not an easy choice, because they'll get pushback like this. Misinformation about Covid is deadly. Rand Paul is spreading misinformation - masks stop the spread of everything because it prevents bodily fluid particles from getting on everything, and also stops people from touching their face. Both of these are…
Do masks stop the spread of bullets? If not, you are spreading misinformation and need to be banned.
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.
I am pretty sure a large number of people on "your side" (for the record I am on Rand's side on this) want to prevent it We have evidence of this First you said "2 weeks to flatten the curve" we did that, and flattened the curve hospitals were saved ... but you were not appeased then you said "a few months to reduce the deaths" we did that and death rate dropped... but you were not appeased Then you said "a few more…
No, not enough of us did that.
For measles and polio we did. No one is asking you to wear a measles mask, and measles is very contagious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How long are you expecting people to wear masks? What are the exit criteria? It obviously isn't sustainable for most people. The virus is now endemic in the worldwide human population, plus some animal species. It can't be eradicated even with high vaccination rates. It's inevitable that eventually all of us will be exposed. The only question is when. Wearing masks and other non-pharmaceutical interventions can be us…
How would you know whether the virus can be eradicated with high vaccination rates? We haven't achieved high rates. Anywhere. At all. Ever. And of course, we have a century of history of viruses that now do not exist anymore because we eradicated them. With vaccines. So what are you even talking about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Obviously nobody wants YouTube to be the arbiter of truth This is not obvious. Many people are advocating for YouTube to ban what is currently considered misinformation.
Considered by who? Seasoned medical doctors cannot even have discussions amongst themselves on Youtube if their discussion even touches on a few specific areas. Their "misinformation" policy is INSANE on so many levels and it ensures misinformation will thrive for much longer than it otherwise would if they just let experts have honest and open dialogues. It would be a million times better if they at least allowed Me…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much of this is about 'masks' and really about Rand Paul calling for mass civil disobedience against COVID restrictions? Here's the full video: https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1424399282447298563
What's exactly wrong with mass civil disobedience? If anything, it shows that you have problems with your political system; and that the current ruler has lost the narrative.
So if Rand Paul is democratically elected and YouTube silences him, then in effect YouTube is silencing the population that elected Rand Paul. Furthermore (I can't see the video) - if he did indeed simply quote two peer-reviewed papers is it right to suspend him? As an exercise, which of the following statements are correct: 1. Gaiter masks will stop you from getting COVID-19 2. Surgical masks will stop you from gett…
My read of the evidence in 2021: 1. Gaiter masks will nominally reduce your odds of getting COVID-19 (viral loads down perhaps 30%), and more significantly reduce your odds of spreading it 2. Surgical masks will dramatically reduce your odds of getting COVID-19 in public settings (e.g. shopping), and slightly reduce your odds in closer settings (e.g. co-habitating, where it's impossible to keep masks on 100% of the t…