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

591–600 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#591

Post by edoceo »

ravenstine wrote: post #547
IIAOPSW wrote: post #229

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…

Should I be suspended from HN if I say I don't believe in seat belts?

No. Cause in that case you're only expressing your own beliefs. But! If you have a position of authority in some Government agency and then broadcast loudly and frequently that seat belts to not work at all then yes, you should be temp-banned.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#592

Post by nicetryguy »

quantumBerry wrote: post #542
nicetryguy wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither. You should consider other people for a change.

> Neither. You should consider other people for a change. And your hypocritical argument is on the selfish belief that you believe society owes you something (supporting your healthcare) when you make a mistake. That is your argument not mine. I believe liberty means you can choose not to wear a seatbelt, and society can choose not to support your mistake. Personally I do not wear a seatbelt while riding a motorcycle…

> if I am permanently disfigured or mentally damaged I hope that If I'm unable to on my own that my wife would help me put a swift and terminal end to my misery

What about her misery? That will be permanent. Did that ever occur to you?

> You cannot possibly legislate the risk out of life.

You can sure as hell hedge against it. Does waiting at red lights and following traffic signals infringe your freedom to get from point A to point B faster? According to your infallible view of the rules and regulations of society we should just have four way free-for-alls and accept the risks of piloting tons of steel at unregulated speeds hurling towards each other and accept the inevitable consequences of mass death on a daily basis. I cannot prescribe to your worldview. I believe in road signs, traffic lights, and people being punished for breaking these rules with my tax dollars. I believe i am entitled by the government to a right to travel to point A to point B without legitimately fearing for my life on a daily basis.

"Well some accidents happen so that means that traffic lights and road signs are completely useless. It's just the government infringing on my ability to hit an accelerator whenever i damn well please." Give me a break. You are narrow headed, selfish, foolish, and wrong.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#593

Post by seanclayton »

dfxm12 wrote: post #103
gibba999 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's really problematic is authentic, substantially N95-equivalent masks are now: - Available - Cheap - Plentiful - Comfortable Without a conversation, it's impossible to get people to wear them. As a footnote, COVID19 spreads through both large droplets and aerosol, and infection is highly dependent on initial viral load. Eliminating large droplets is helpful, especially on the way out.

especially on the way out This doesn't matter to Paul. Him, and most of his colleagues/voters, etc. base their ideals on individualism. To them, pro-social behavior, like wearing a mask to protect others , is inconceivable.

individualism is not selfishness.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#594

Post by amanaplanacanal »

version_five wrote: post #586
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's libertarian as a religion, and practical libertarian. I'm the latter type: free markets are generally good, and people should generally be left alone to live their lives. But public health is a real thing that matters, and governments should step in to make sure externalities are charged to the people who caused them. I still think I'm a libertarian, but the religious type might disagree.

So only fanatics can disagree with you, is that how we should understand your setup? Regardless, call me a fanatic, but a big part of individual rights, and I believe liberal democracy, not just libertarianism, is not to be subject to other people's panic. Whether that is a border wall or its enforced mobility and gathering restrictions, there are things the government should just not be allowed to do, because they a…

All governments already have this power, and always have. You can argue that public health measures should not be the province of government, but that would be a pretty fringe position. You are essentially arguing that there is never a good reason for governments to infringe individual liberties. This is the religious libertarian I am talking about. I recognize it. I used to be one.

If you say instead that it is a legit function of government, but shouldn't be used in this case because on balance the risk is too small to sacrifice liberty for, that's certainly a discussion that could be had.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#595

Post by timr »

Valectar wrote: post #583
timr wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The between-group results are not "inconclusive" -- they found no statistically significant difference between the masked and unmasked cohorts. There's no reason to reject the null hypothesis ("masks are not protective") based on this data. The authors say this: > The most important limitation is that the findings are inconclusive, with CIs compatible with a 46% decrease to a 23% increase in infection. This is not sa…

I didn't mean to say the fact that the interval exists makes it uncertain, I meant to say the fact that it is a 67% spread makes it uncertain. They are saying that they have narrowed the effect down to within that spread with a 95% chance. That combined with sources of uncertainty not covered by that intervale (Listed in their limitations: missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no…

> That combined with sources of uncertainty not covered by that intervale (Listed in their limitations: missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and of course inconclusive results) definitely make it sound pretty inconclusive.

The study is not inconclusive. The study failed to reject the null hypothesis. That much is definitive.

Whether or not there might be some smaller difference that the study wasn't powered to detect...we don't know. It's still a definitive rebuttal of any claim that "masks reduce personal risk of infection by 50%", and the fact that it's not in the "personal protection" section of the CDC webpage is simply editorial bias. At the very least, this paper is the best study ever performed on masks and SARS-CoV2, and it severely limits any real-world claim of protectiveness.

> There is also the limitation that there was "no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others."

The study wasn't designed to do that. It should still be in the "personal protection" section of the CDC webpage, and is not.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#596

Post by edoceo »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #396
IIAOPSW wrote: post #229

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…

> Masks (cloth or otherwise) do in fact reduce infectiousness This has never been proven. Please find me an RCT that shows this. I'll wait. BTW, this is a doubly wrong statement for cloth masks, since cloth masks have plenty of studies showing increases in self-infection, at least relative to wearing a surgical mask.

I just looked, found a whole bunch of stuff on CDC site showing RCT that demonstrates masks do work and that N95 are better than cloth.

Where's the RCT that shows they don't work? I couldn't find one.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#597

Post by scythe »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #478
scythe wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>considering that there has only ever been one RCT done on SARS-2, and it showed no significant difference for its primary endpoint (self-infection). It didn't measure community spread, presumably because actually measuring that is extremely difficult, which is exactly why no study exists to confirm your statement. This argument only makes sense if you think it also makes sense to disregard all non-RCT evidence for t…

I'm happy to get into the philosophy of this, but you should know that mechanistic studies in the absence of RCTs are as good as useless. I can show you how to kill cancer cells in a petri dish. I can't show you how to cure cancer. They're very different beasts. BTW I noticed you mentioned "number and momentum of droplets", which seems to suggest you're still stuck in the old respiratory droplet transmission model an…

>mechanistic studies in the absence of RCTs are as good as useless.

This is of course not true. You also neglect other forms of evidence, like natural experiments:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7877582/

Demanding RCTs or bust is basically poisoning the well. And for all your "happiness" your posts have no shortage of vitriol.

Aerosols are composed of droplets which can be caught in masks, also:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28144885

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#598

Post by rajup »

Bud wrote: post #224
chlodwig wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wearing masks is usually only a minor inconvenience. It's a minor inconvenience at the grocery store. It's a major inconvenience to wear one at gyms. It's a major inconvenience with regards to socializing with friends (a core human need), I really hate not being able to read other people's facial expressions when I talk to them. It's a major inconvenience to require it at schools. It's horrible for kids not to be abl…

You know what's really a "major inconvenience"? Getting intubated and not being able to breathe well for the rest of your life, assuming you survive at all. You know what's really a "major inconvenience" for kids? Dying, or transmitting covid to their parents, killing them, and then growing up with no parents.

You know what's really a "major inconvenience"? Getting in a car and getting hit by a trailer truck and getting paralyzed for life. Lets all stay in a closet at home forever...

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#600

Post by merpnderp »

nomel wrote: post #407
merpnderp wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I bought a washable cloth mask. It claimed to be fancy, with "three layers!". Unfortunately, those three layers are polyester, and are impenetrable to air, so all of my breath in and out is through the gaps in the nose area/bottom. I went back to cheap medical masks. At least I know air is passing through it, so there must be some filtering.

KN95's are readily available in the US on Amazon. Your local university likely even keeps a list of brands which have been tested and pass the KN95 certification test. Mine does, and it has been extremely nice having a supply of cheap, safe, high quality masks my local uni has tested.

And since they are KN95, you aren't taking masks away from medical professionals.

Post reply on HN