411–420 of 803 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
According to prevailing wisdom, civil disobedience means you're a X-ist, denier gun nut who has fallen for disinformation. No room for questioning the official narrative, lives are at stake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I, for one, wouldn't think that was crazy, no. Not when the preventability of those deaths is proportional to how well people stick to pandemic mitigation protocol. Very, very few people are willing to just shrug and say "600,000 preventable deaths is acceptable" in this context. The pandemic creates challenges that are uniquely tuned to impact the American "rugged individualism" approach to problem solving that work…
> "rugged individualism" approach to problem solving that works well in most circumstances. I would love a source for this, because "rugged individualism" is the reason why US has the worst healthcare and homelessness of developed nations.
It does seem to do a decent job of encouraging and rewarding entrepreneurism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His comment was on masks reducing the risk of you getting infected, not infecting others. Which is a selfish point, but nonetheless a correct one.
The masks work, but he only mentions a narrow use that isn't the current reason for wearing them. That's the misinformation; he got you, too. Think of it this way: "Don't wear a seatbelt because they don't keep other cars from hitting you."
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.
> If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough" he could have said that. He could have, but he didn't. You're not his editor. > But he's a senator. He's also a physician. He might know something about infectious diseases that you don't. > His statement was a dog whistle to his base. Maybe it was. So what? > They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking.…
Saying "oh but he's a physician so him encouraging mass death is an interesting opinion I want to hear" sounds... a bit nutty dont you think?
Easy fix for matters like this: citation. If you want to remove a video or other social media post, do so temporarily pending citation. Give people a way to back up their point of view with real data/research. If there is a conflict, put one of those warning banners beneath the video and link to the cited resource. Done. Otherwise, these companies look like oligarchs participating in low-key fascism.
The problem with this is there often is some shred of truth in any extreme claim that is pulled far out of context. A better approach might be to leave it up but flag it and link to a page that explains what parts of the claim are true and which are misconstrued or embellished. Social media excels at optimizing that one more engagement , leverage it here to lead people closer to the truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's so much contradictory science on what you're claiming as ultimate truth. There's paper saying masks don't work there's paper saying masks do work. This is not a conclusive settled fact.
It's pretty conclusive. It's been conclusive for years and years, before COVID-19. There's no question at all that masks reduce infectiousness through the extremely obvious method of preventing some virus particles from going from one person to another, and also no question at all that probability of infection depends on number of virus particles around, and that viruses in general produce worse symptoms when the ini…
> The use of masks, which are medical devices, requires correct use, based on medical principles unfortunately not known by the whole population. This cultural deficiency, linked to the breathing difficulties caused by the use of this filter, has led to incorrect management of these important medical devices, facilitating the commission of errors that can make the masks ineffective or *even dangerous because they can become a vehicle for the spread of the disease itself*.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092575352...
That article cites a WHO statement:
> Using a mask incorrectly however, may actually increase the risk of transmission, rather than reduce it.
https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/Adviceusemask...
Edit: what is wrong with people here, downvoting quotes from scientific articles and WHO statements, because they don't like what they say?
Easy fix for matters like this: citation. If you want to remove a video or other social media post, do so temporarily pending citation. Give people a way to back up their point of view with real data/research. If there is a conflict, put one of those warning banners beneath the video and link to the cited resource. Done. Otherwise, these companies look like oligarchs participating in low-key fascism.
Did you read the article or watch the offending video? Because he did cite research. Now you start requiring YouTube to decide what research is ok and which isn’t. [1] “YouTube banning me for 7 days for a video that quotes 2 peer reviewed articles saying cloth masks don’t work”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
600k deaths after huge mitigations. Without any mitigation’s is it 3 million in the US dead?
How can you prove the mitigations worked? The only controls out there (Sweden, some US states, etc.) aren’t very robust (nor in favor of mitigation efforts).
> YouTube indicated that examples of the offending content in the video included the line: “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.” > It also included the quote: “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.” Regardless of what you think about YouTube's misinformation policy, I don't think this i…
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…