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

781–790 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#781

Post by kgarten »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #779
kgarten wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I'm patronizing because you have a problem with reading. The expert in COVID-19, who made a test detecting it. Drosten was in the team who MADE the test for COVID-19, yes they use a PCR test. I never claimed he invited it. Kary Mullis did not make the test for COVID-19 ... That about summarizes your problem. About the articles ... another commenter already pointed out the problems with them: 1. Study : Influenza…

I tried to address your claims but only got through a few before seeing they were either cherrypicked or outright scientifially wrong. > Yes I'm patronizing because you have a problem with reading. You're patronizing because you arrogantly think it's impossible that you're wrong. 1> Influenza not COVID 19 (different, no aerosol transmission ) Are you saying Influenza doesn't have aerosol transmission? 2>Faceplam: The…

I treat you like that because: 1. Ad hominem attacks and argumentation ...

2. You post a partisan website that posts links to studies with claims that are wrong. Where even the authors of papers linked there say that these conclusions are wrong.

2. You use anecdotes over studies.

3. You post links to studies from 2020 (and didn't even read the papers I posted earlier from 2021). You continue to troll people with the same old papers that have been rebunked (other users before me pointed out weaknesses that you just ignore ... and then you call them facist ... lol, very scientific.

4. Who are your experts who say "no need to wear masks"? Can you find even a virologist and epidemiologist actively working on COVID 19 (not writing policy papers but doing actual lab work on the virus) who claims that in a statement, what you are claiming?

Two of my experts in the pro mask camp are Sandra Ciesek and Christian Dorsten: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Ciesek

5. I was hoping for the aerosol influenza question: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/13/1/06-1202_article It's not conclusive :P You are easy to get ... You jump on any vaguely false information (ignoring the rest). Same with the PCR test .. It's super funny. Honestly, I was not so much in the pro-mask camp, as I didn't know that much about it. Now I'm sure they work (after reading all the papers you linked and doing some further research), thanks for clarifying!

Thanks a lot. I pray for you. Personally, I don't need help. I have a great job, you know doing science stuff ... on a second consideration probably you won't understand (it's about hypothesis testing, reproducible experiments and statistics ...)

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#782

Post by kgarten »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #779
kgarten wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I'm patronizing because you have a problem with reading. The expert in COVID-19, who made a test detecting it. Drosten was in the team who MADE the test for COVID-19, yes they use a PCR test. I never claimed he invited it. Kary Mullis did not make the test for COVID-19 ... That about summarizes your problem. About the articles ... another commenter already pointed out the problems with them: 1. Study : Influenza…

I tried to address your claims but only got through a few before seeing they were either cherrypicked or outright scientifially wrong. > Yes I'm patronizing because you have a problem with reading. You're patronizing because you arrogantly think it's impossible that you're wrong. 1> Influenza not COVID 19 (different, no aerosol transmission ) Are you saying Influenza doesn't have aerosol transmission? 2>Faceplam: The…

Forgot:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7883189/#__ffn_...

That seems a decent summary of all studies ...

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#783

Post by nickthemagicman »

kgarten wrote: post #781
nickthemagicman wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to address your claims but only got through a few before seeing they were either cherrypicked or outright scientifially wrong. > Yes I'm patronizing because you have a problem with reading. You're patronizing because you arrogantly think it's impossible that you're wrong. 1> Influenza not COVID 19 (different, no aerosol transmission ) Are you saying Influenza doesn't have aerosol transmission? 2>Faceplam: The…

I treat you like that because: 1. Ad hominem attacks and argumentation ... 2. You post a partisan website that posts links to studies with claims that are wrong. Where even the authors of papers linked there say that these conclusions are wrong. 2. You use anecdotes over studies. 3. You post links to studies from 2020 (and didn't even read the papers I posted earlier from 2021). You continue to troll people with the…

You're a fascinating specimen!

You literally said the flu wasn't an airborne disease in a previous comment!

And almost everything else you claim is either an outright falsehood or a disingenuous misrepresentation.

Yet you fervently, fascistly, and insanely fight for your narrative in a gish gallop style of conversation that resembles an amphetamine fueled rage.

And you can't believe anything you say is even remotely incorrect! Even if presented otherwise!

It's hopeless to talk to you but fascinating to see how your mind works and the minds of the other Covid zealots!

You are a rich specimen of a human being!

Best of luck!

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#784

Post by kgarten »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #783
kgarten wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I treat you like that because: 1. Ad hominem attacks and argumentation ... 2. You post a partisan website that posts links to studies with claims that are wrong. Where even the authors of papers linked there say that these conclusions are wrong. 2. You use anecdotes over studies. 3. You post links to studies from 2020 (and didn't even read the papers I posted earlier from 2021). You continue to troll people with the…

You're a fascinating specimen! You literally said the flu wasn't an airborne disease in a previous comment! And almost everything else you claim is either an outright falsehood or a disingenuous misrepresentation. Yet you fervently, fascistly, and insanely fight for your narrative in a gish gallop style of conversation that resembles an amphetamine fueled rage. And you can't believe anything you say is even remotely…

It's even easier to rebut you. I'm neither fascist nor do I take drugs.

Could you find a virologist researcher actively working on COVID (in the lab) with a standing in the sciences who agrees and states your opinion (not publishing papers that you misunderstand or propaganda websites)? Are you sticking with Prof. Dr. Ines Kappstein? Can you read German or why did you cite her article?

My opinion is aligned with two of the world top experts on epidemiology and virology, as I said before I know too little and am often wrong. Therefore, I tend to go with the scientific consensus.

My only point, believe what you want to believe ... Yet, it's not the scientific consensus. (That does not mean that you are wrong, it just means that I don't follow your advice, as there are people working 20 years and more on the topic who disagree with you and have the better arguments. )

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#785

Post by rat87 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #514
selimthegrim wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rand Paul is the GOP now? You might want to tell Trump that.

Well, they're also banning Trump... (Different "they", though - Twitter. But Twitter was Trump's main medium. Anyway, point is, once you raise the topic, yeah, it looks like treeman79 actually does have a bit of evidence on his side...)

he does not.

They're not banning a political party at all. They are banning some individuals for breaking the terms of service.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#786

Post by kgarten »

timr wrote: post #775
kgarten wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not improved?? I just checked nature... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24115-7 Seems pretty clear to me.

The Leung et. al. paper (first link) should never have passed editorial review. Look at figure 1: the only significant result in the entire paper (1a, panel 3) is based on four data points . I don't know if this is p-hacking, per se, but it's not a robust result. And not that I give the paper a lot of credence, but it's worth nothing that the overall trend across all pathogens is that masks are ineffective against ae…

in terms of physics I see a good reason to wear a mask. If COVID did not invent a sneaky way to go around that

Article 2 has a whole lot of pre-prints with data in the citations ... :) Here's a follow up (also with a lot of paper citations : https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01394-0

Talking with friends who are virologists, they all seem to agree masks help.

What's wrong with the articles the nature commentary are based on And articles like that: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7883189/#__ffn_...

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#787

Post by kgarten »

timr wrote: post #775
kgarten wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not improved?? I just checked nature... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24115-7 Seems pretty clear to me.

The Leung et. al. paper (first link) should never have passed editorial review. Look at figure 1: the only significant result in the entire paper (1a, panel 3) is based on four data points . I don't know if this is p-hacking, per se, but it's not a robust result. And not that I give the paper a lot of credence, but it's worth nothing that the overall trend across all pathogens is that masks are ineffective against ae…

For me that these papers get accepted is rather a sign that scientific consensus is on the side of masks work.

Usually, it takes 2 -5 years to get a nature paper ready (at least for the labs I know). Seeing also the pre-prints that were in the article that you dismissed as "news article." and others it seems a strong indication that most virologists and epidemiologists think masks work.

They might be wrong, yet I haven't heard any convincing theory or model on why that should be the case.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#788

Post by timr »

kgarten wrote: post #787
timr wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Leung et. al. paper (first link) should never have passed editorial review. Look at figure 1: the only significant result in the entire paper (1a, panel 3) is based on four data points . I don't know if this is p-hacking, per se, but it's not a robust result. And not that I give the paper a lot of credence, but it's worth nothing that the overall trend across all pathogens is that masks are ineffective against ae…

For me that these papers get accepted is rather a sign that scientific consensus is on the side of masks work. Usually, it takes 2 -5 years to get a nature paper ready (at least for the labs I know). Seeing also the pre-prints that were in the article that you dismissed as "news article." and others it seems a strong indication that most virologists and epidemiologists think masks work. They might be wrong, yet I hav…

> For me that these papers get accepted is rather a sign that scientific consensus is on the side of masks work.

Well that's a great way to confirm your biases. The "scientific consensus" was that the earth was the center of the universe, that infection was transmitted by miasma, that plate tectonics were a crackpot theory...I could go on.

Science is the history of well-controlled experiment overturning consensus thinking.

In any case, editorial review is a human process, and like all human processes, has ample sources of error. In this case, a big source of error is that the major scientific journals have spent the better part of 2020 falling all over themselves to publish garbage about Covid that gets press hits.

> Usually, it takes 2 -5 years to get a nature paper ready (at least for the labs I know).

This obviously isn't true in this case. The pandemic hasn't been around for that long!

Also, no, it doesn't take 2-5 years to put together an editorial. Even in normal times.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#789

Post by timr »

kgarten wrote: post #786
timr wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Leung et. al. paper (first link) should never have passed editorial review. Look at figure 1: the only significant result in the entire paper (1a, panel 3) is based on four data points . I don't know if this is p-hacking, per se, but it's not a robust result. And not that I give the paper a lot of credence, but it's worth nothing that the overall trend across all pathogens is that masks are ineffective against ae…

in terms of physics I see a good reason to wear a mask. If COVID did not invent a sneaky way to go around that Article 2 has a whole lot of pre-prints with data in the citations ... :) Here's a follow up (also with a lot of paper citations : https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01394-0 Talking with friends who are virologists, they all seem to agree masks help. What's wrong with the articles the nature commenta…

> Article 2 has a whole lot of pre-prints with data in the citations

This is yet another news article, written by a journalist (Lynne Peeples, who wrote the other Nature news article you've shared upthread) who is mostly re-hashing her previous article. Did you read it or follow the citations? This is an excellent example of hearsay: if you don't take the time to read the citations in detail, you won't realize what you're missing.

Most of the citations here are same citations in the previous Nature news article. Only citations 4-8 deal with the question of masks' impact on transmission (the remainder are for other questions, like whether vaccinated people can be infected). Of the papers in citations 4-8, two are new. Both are based on mathematical models using self-reported survey data and/or state-level case data. I don't know how good these papers are, but all studies of this form are low-quality medical evidence.

Unfortunately, bad journalists can re-hash the same crappy studies faster than skilled people can debunk their work.

> Talking with friends who are virologists, they all seem to agree masks help.

That's meaningless. You can find a sample of scientists to support pretty much anything.

> What's wrong with... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

So many things. The paper uses survey responses (= bad data), and tries to correlate it with state-level infection curves (= blurry data), and only does it for a month-by-month difference for every month between April and September 2020, when cases were falling across all of north america. It sets arbitrary thresholds for "high cases" and "high mask wearing". It doesn't control for confounding factors, like other policies the states in question might have enacted.

This is a terrible paper. I cannot believe PLOS One published this. It is embarrassing.

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7883189/#__ffn_...

This is not a paper, it's a review. It presents no data. It summarizes the authors' opinions on other papers.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#790

Post by swiley »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #229
corndoge wrote: post #3

> 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…

Safety belts made out of office rubber bands probably won't help much and silencing people for pointing out that allowing them is bad regulation is self defeating.
Post reply on HN