YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

The tone of your last sentence is not compatible with you apparent lack of information (best case) or omission (worst case) about these companies juridically categorizing themselves as platforms, as opposed to publishers, so they are not just "their website enforcing its own rules"? [1]

[1] While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.” which is precisely what they are obscenely doing.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-1588...

Didn't know the labs recorded if a person was wearing masks .. If they didn't the second is more reliable :)

Basic science if you dont measure something (e.g. how many people wear masks) you don't know anything. Fairly simple isn't it?

lol ... scientists are all wrong, because my gut tells me I'm right. That's not how it works. If you have studies that masks don't work (or are harmful) similar to the 3 linked on top .. There's also the lancet study and another nature study showing that masks reduce infection risks. Then please show me ... Yet don't come with anecdotes ( I know what happened in Texas .. Lol I know what happens in Hong Kong and Taiwan .. People just laugh about the US here :))

No, here it means "came to a different purpose than I and everybody else using science did."

now we are getting somewhere... away from personal insults (and ad hominem attacks).

Honestly, if you show me proof about your position, I easily flip. that's the point of science, I'm happy to be proven wrong. That's what I like about HackerNews as well.

Yet, what you showed so far makes me rather worry.

I used nature papers from medicine (these are super hard to publish ... I have friends who tried. You need to be rigorous and on the top of your field in research. don't get me wrong there are issues with peer-review and publishing but they are nothing compared to the sources you currently shared).

Ok let's look at your papers. The first is not a paper, not even peer reviewed. It's a blog that is known to post factually wrong articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Policy_Research There is not even an author on the website. Wikipedia lists founders and authors unkown. The focus is also politics not medicine (seems no medical expert has ever looked at this). The wikipedia article has even lists were they debunk the claims of the article you posted.

Moving on to the bmjopen article. Yes, this is peer reviewed, in an open access journal. Compared to nature, I think I could be able to write an article that is published there ( Impact factor 3 compared to nature with over 14).

Still it's peer-reviewed and not blog propaganda from some unknown author. First of all, the paper does not say anything about the overall effectivness of masks.

They compare cloth masks with medical masks in healthcare workers. That matters. Also of course, here (and in Hong Kong) everybody wears surgical masks (and a lot of people wear cloth mask on top), so 2 masks. Makes sense doesn't it.

Again where is some scientific evidence that masks don't work? There is no evidence. The Texas example you bring up is an anecdote. I can bring an anecdote on how better HK, Taiwan and China dealt with the issue all of the people wearing masks and then where are we? We have no clue who is right. Then take in the advice of the majority of medical healthcare professionals (they advice to wear masks).

The expert in COVID-19, who made a test detecting it recommends wearing masks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten

The people who are against masks just don't have that standing, they usually are not experts in virology (have never published scientifically), and don't seem to understand the difference between anecdotes and the scientific methods. You might find some that are not in there and I'm careful to listen and check their claims ... because I want to be proven wrong (This is how I learn, this is why I engage in discussion ... I want to see where I am wrong.). Your argumentation is unfortunately completely lagging.

> Fascists deny alternative ideas by any means necessary including [technicalities] even if the spirit of the idea is correct.

> It’s what fascists do.

Nick, you’d be wise to listen to your own advice.

It is a fact that masks reduce the spread of disease.

They are not a silver bullet, but a tool for mitigation. The idea is to layer multiple risk-mitigating techniques.

Masks on their own are not enough, but masks plus distancing plus hand washing plus travel restrictions plus vaccines plus whatever else is somewhat effective combines to be something much more effective.

In one comment, you say to “stop spreading misinformation” and in another you say “numerous studies show that masks don’t prevent covid” and follow up with the comments about fascists.

You’re literally doing what you say fascists do.