Live data from Hacker News

YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

mercurynews.com

601–610 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not “misinformation.” It’s a perfectly legitimate argument against ineffective government mandates. In a cost-benefit balancing framework, it points out that the benefits will be much less than expected.

> ineffective government mandates There's the bait and switch. You see, cloth masks aren't as effective as N95 mask, that doesn't mean they aren't effective. Nor does it mean that the government mandates to wear masks are ineffective. Frankly, you can look at nearly every other world government that issued similar guidance to the CDC and in all cases those countries did better than the US. Why? Because it wasn't a po…

> Frankly, you can look at nearly every other world government that issued similar guidance to the CDC and in all cases those countries did better than the US. Why? Because it wasn't a political issue. The countries that faired the worst all turned COVID into a game of the left vs right

The per capita US death rate is in the middle of the UK, Italy, Spain, and France (which together have about half of Europe’s population). The only country that did substantially better was Germany.

Are you saying masks were politicized in all of those countries besides Germany?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#602

The cloth masks we were given at my workplace to wear in the office included an information slip in the packaging that included amongst cleaning instructions: "This is not a virus proof mask". Would I get banned from YouTube for reading out this verbatim?

Only if you did that as a senator and physician from the other party.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want to discredit mask mandates. Pointing out that they won’t work in practice, because people will mostly use these cloth masks that work poorly, is a perfectly legitimate basis for discrediting mask mandates that is also based on the science. It’s like pointing out that an assault weapons ban won’t meaningfully reduce homicides because the vast majority of homicides are committed using handguns. That’s a perfe…

The quote mentioned that store-bought masks don't prevent infection. He didn't say that they work poorly. The recommendations suggest that having any mask is better than having no mask.

Whether there is any difference between those two assertions depends strongly on your implicit cost-benefit outlook. Liberals typically subscribe to a “any measure even one with a small benefit is worth it.” Conservatives usually feel the opposite.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#604

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…

> You will find literally zero papers credibly claiming otherwise.

Of the papers cited in the WHO meta-analysis of face masks and infection [1], all of the (three!) papers from a non-health-care setting had a confidence interval overlapping 1.0 (i.e. "no benefit"). Of those in a health-care setting, about half had confidence intervals overlapping 1.0 (i.e. "no benefit"):

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

The literature in this area was exceptionally ambiguous prior to 2020, and hasn't improved over the course of the pandemic. You've just made a provably incorrect claim. If you did it on YouTube, I guess you'd be banned!

(just kidding; we all know that you can't possibly misinform people when you're agreeing with the party line!)

[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#605

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…

Cloth masks might not keep you safe. They do, however, improve safety for those around you. Anything that reduces droplet velocity and interferes with aerosol disperson is by definition better than nothing.

(I didn't downvote), I see what you're saying, but it is complex. If you spend an hour in a poorly ventilated classroom/office space/cubicle farm full of people, and your cloth mask gets damp from your breath, and the CO2 level hits 2000+ meaning the air circulation is extremely poor, is it really believable that a cloth mask is doing anything at all?

A well fit KN95 is drastically preferable, readily available, and highly affordable. No idea why these aren't being promoted as the only safe choice.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#606

It is misinformation ... I live in Japan. Everybody wears a mask here, they work ... It's the only major difference between US and Japan in terms of prevention measures. No flue season last year and lower infection rates ... How can wearing masks be a political issue? Whoever votes for these idiots, I pitty you.

I pity your reliance on anecdote as evidence, but hey that's the human condition.

Do you have an alternate, likely explanation why there is no higher incidence and was no flue season in Japan? I believe in testable hypotheses and reproducable experiments ... Yet that's a bit difficult when dealing with a pandemic and potentially deadly virus. It seems also from studies, that even cloth masks have an effect. If there's a chance I can save a life by the very slight annoyance of wearing a mask, isn't that something we should do?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#607
post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"Kissing" is the behavior, it should either be allowed or not. It's clearly wrong to have different rules depending on the gender of those involved.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#608
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I for one want to hear his expertise, even if it disagrees with the conclusions you've already made. That's fine. YouTube doesn't want to host it, because in their view it's harmful. What's the problem?

> That's fine. YouTube doesn't want to host it, because in their view it's harmful. What's the problem? It is perfectly rationale to say that YouTube has the freedom to make editorial choices while also pointing out that they are making bad choices. You aren't countering any criticism by stating that YouTube has the freedom to make those choices -- you're just changing the topic and ignoring the nature of the critici…

Because the criticism is bollocks. "I want to hear particular views on a particular website" isn't an argument.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

I guess she didn't think of my misery every time she gets in her car and drives somewhere unnecessary like a restaurant or gym to enjoy her life. Why would she engage in such risky behavior? Should I report her to CPS for child endangerment every time the child is taken somewhere in a vehicle for enjoyment (such as the park), exposing them to danger of horrible death by car accident? Could it be that we have a consensual agreement that we allow each other to engage in risky behavior as an understanding that we do not find life worth living without taking even unnecessary risks? Did I mention she rides the motorcycle too, also without a seatbelt?

> Does waiting at red lights and following traffic signals infringe your freedom to get from point A to point B faster?

Yes often it does. If it is 2am and no one is on the road I might run a red light rather than wait. Maybe you wouldn't. You may want to alert my local attorney general so I may be taken into custody promptly.

>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.

That's a nice belief but you have no right to not fear for your life. If you don't fear for your life every time you drive, you must not live in any major US city. I fear for my life daily here, but no one forced me to get on the road so the risk is voluntary. Everyone else will not stop driving just because it makes you scared.

>"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.

That's an excellent straw man.

I design radar detectors and devices for detecting the evil guys doing traffic enforcement for a living. My job is literally to make sure people don't have to deal with the consequences of silly traffic laws. My life's work is channeling my hate of traffic control into devices that prevent new victims of the state. It feeds myself and my family. So yes I do not believe in people being punished for victimless crimes like speeding or running a light without property damage or physical harm.

>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 have lived/travelled in 3rd world countries with almost no traffic enforcement such as Philippines, Syria, and Paraguay. It is probably dangerous, but somehow people survived. I road the taxis and motorcycles there and actually loved it. It is possible to drive in a way that reduces your risk even without traffic control devices. Believe it or not even in these countries people do not view driving as particularly risky part of their life and when I have questioned these 3rd world taxi drivers about their occupation they have not been nearly as worried as you are.

Post reply on HN