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

561–570 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#561

Post by Valectar »

Loveaway wrote: post #541
johncessna wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we still supposed to be 'Resisting' or is that over with now?

Yes resist! Do you want wear a mask for the rest of your life? Do you want annual mandatory injections of pathogens into your body? Do you want to check-in/check-out with your QR code ID wherever you go, that comes with an expiration date, enables mass surveillance, and can be disabled at a whim? A dictated narrative, censorship of opposition, rationality forbidden? Or do you think you are fine with this and want to…

You act like this is the first time in the history of the planet a country has enacted measures to stop the spread of disease. It's not, we've done it before, and the world didn't collapse because people were inconvenienced temporarily.

https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/mask-r...

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#562

Post by kenjackson »

natural219 wrote: post #466
nielsbot wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you have to do is look at a deaths/infections curve before and after mitigations.

it's been looked at several times, and a vast majority of the convincing evidence seems to fall in favor of the camp that overall mitigations do nearly nothing compared to control samples of places with no/fewer restrictions https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/18/coronalinks-5-18-20-wh...

That article is more than a year old. A far newer, more complete assessment shows that mitigations do you have an impact in reducing deaths and infections:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261286v...

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#564

Post by rcurry »

djrogers wrote: post #523
jiggawatts wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Global cooling was never the accepted science, that's an urban legend, like the "we only use 10% of our brains" thing. Global warming was suspected as far back as the late 1800s, and well established by the 1970s.

> Global cooling was never the accepted science, that's an urban legend, It was accepted enough that it was taught to me in grade school, was on the cover of Time magazine, and in the news regularly.

I’m still freaking out about Dioxin.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#565

Post by sampo »

leereeves wrote: post #544
sampo wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a statistical shit show to even show that masks have any effect at all It's also a statistical shit show to show that condoms have any effect (against unwanted pregnancies, or sexually transmitted diseases), in studies using RCT settings: https://jech.bmj.com/content/65/2/100 Do you think this should make us conclude, that condoms may reduce STDs or unwanted pregnancies at max 5-20%?

That paper isn't about the effectiveness of condoms; it's about "Interventions to increase effective condom use...condom design, access to condoms, condom use behaviours and condom-related legislation." In other words, it's a study about the effectiveness of policies, not the condoms themselves.

So, just like the mask studies mentioned.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#566

Post by [deleted] »

syshum wrote: post #538
robotresearcher wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is how to get the fraction of people vaccinated high enough, so that costly mask+behavior mandates are obviated. Mask wearing and behavior changes last year were massively effective against flu, by accident. Flu is usually much less deadly than COVID. That factor matters in how we treat it. (edit: added data) The 2017-2018 flu season was an historically bad one in the US, resulting in an estimated 30,453…

>>Mask wearing and behavior changes last year were massively effective against flu, by accident. This is assuming facts not in evidence. there are other factors at play 1. Many people avoided seeking medical treatment that normally would have for the flu this year due to covid, this do not mean they were not infected just it was not recorded 2. There are indications that some people testing positive for COVID could h…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#567

Post by amanaplanacanal »

poopypoopington wrote: post #189
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.

This, he doesn't care about the science or saving lives. He cares about maintaining and growing his power and he thinks the way to do that is with these sorts of dog whistles to his base.

There are a set of politicians who believe that long term the best option for getting their preferred policies into law is by doing everything possible to get and keep their party in power. I assume they have the best of intentions, but the end result is that anything is permissable if they think it will lead to that outcome. I'm sure we can all (left or right) think of some who fit this description.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#568

Post by __blockcipher__ »

Valectar wrote: post #546
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's been conclusive for years and years, before COVID-19 What? The overwhelming literature showed the exact opposite! That cloth masks did not prevent Influenza whatsoever. I'd start with https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/ as a great review, and then take a look at some specific studies like this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/ > The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cl…

Where did your conclusion of "masks definitely don't work for SARS-2" come from? Just in your quote it stated that the control that cloth mask use was compared to was a population with a high proportion of mask wearing. The study does not compare cloth mask usage to no mask usage, and only says that it is possible that cloth masks are harmful. Also if you would like some more up to date information, as well as a larg…

> Just in your quote it stated that the control that cloth mask use was compared to was a population with a high proportion of mask wearing. The study does not compare cloth mask usage to no mask usage, and only says that it is possible that cloth masks are harmful.

That was me debunking the “before COVID, masks were known to work” claim of the GP. That was not a study of SARS-2 but rather Influenza.

The “masks don’t work for sars-2” was in reference to sars-2 aerosol transmission, which masks mechanistically don’t protect against. There is only one RCT of sars-2 in a community setting, and it failed to demonstrate an improvement in the primary endpoint of self-infection. There is no study showing that masks slow the spread of sars-2 in a community. Yet despite the lack of any studies, various medical authorities like the CDC are issuing statements that they do exactly that, which is a classic case of an institution using its credibility to advance baseless claims

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#569

Post by seizethegdgap »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #300
darksaints wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a false dichotomy. None of them will stop covid. Some will just do better than others in different situations.

Maybe we can have a discussion about it in the comment section of the YouTube video. Oh wait...

Yes, YouTube, well known and renowned for intelligent mid-to-low-level discussions in the video comments about highly complex topics and not at all a breeding ground for astroturfing, grifting, quackery, selective editing, and charlatanry.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#570

Post by jimmygrapes »

patmcc wrote: post #515
tw600040 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if some restaurant business says X (gays, christians, asians etc) not welcome we don't want to host them, that's fine too?

We make a distinction between characteristics/traits and actions, generally. It's generally wrong to discriminate based on traits and fine to discriminate on actions. So; if YouTube said "we don't allow Christian white men" or whatever, absolutely, that's terrible and shouldn't be allowed. If they say "we don't allow people to say things that are actively harmful" that's quite different. If you go into a restaurant a…

How about if a man and woman kiss and are left alone but when two men kiss they are asked to leave for public indecency?
Post reply on HN