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

581–590 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#581

Post by amanaplanacanal »

xienze wrote: post #355
lamontcg wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The German health authorities were making the argument that cloth masks weren't good enough if you thought that wearing them meant that you could increase your risk exposure. He's arguing they just don't work and nobody should bother with them at all. The German authorities would agree that if you have to go out to buy food you're better off wearing a mask than none at all. Rand Paul would disagree. Those are two dif…

> He's arguing they just don't work and nobody should bother with them at all. Are the virus particles significantly smaller than the holes in a cloth mask — nevermind the gaps typically present around the wearer’s face — or not? If they’re smaller, how effective can the masks possibly be?

Another poster explained this. The physics around this is not as simple as you might expect.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#582

Post by __blockcipher__ »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #572
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's “non-zero”; not the same thing as abundant. How do you even know R>1? I'd say “found in wild animals” is the standard for “abundant animal reservoirs”; that's “some animals can catch it from humans” which we already know. I literally linked you a study that alleged that the virus jumped back from minks to humans. There's far more studies on the animal reservoirs, I just don't feel like doing an exhaustive li…

> I literally linked you a study that alleged that the virus jumped back from minks to humans. I understand that. But unless each infected mink infects (on average) more than one healthy mink, mink populations are not reservoirs. (You don't need much animal-to-human transmission for it to count as a reservoir, so that's an almost irrelevant point and I don't know why you're focusing on it.) > Good luck chasing down t…

How about you explain to me your proposal for SARS-2 eradication, and then I’ll explain why it’s unrealistic?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#583

Post by Valectar »

timr wrote: post #559
Valectar wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so you say that characterizing the results as incoonclusive results is dishonest, but in the article the limitations sections literally lists "Inconclusive results" as their first item. On top of that they state: "Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection." Which sounds like their saying they can say with 95% c…

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 blinding, and of course inconclusive results) definitely make it sound pretty inconclusive.

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

The article explicitly states "The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection."

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#584

Post by jacquesm »

danhak wrote: post #577
jacquesm wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you realize you are now arguing against yourself in the same thread?

I’m curious how so?

We either should take all variables into account or we shouldn't you can't have it both ways. Or was that not what you meant?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#585

Post by Covzire »

_-david-_ wrote: post #368
Covzire wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considered by who? Seasoned medical doctors cannot even have discussions amongst themselves on Youtube if their discussion even touches on a few specific areas. Their "misinformation" policy is INSANE on so many levels and it ensures misinformation will thrive for much longer than it otherwise would if they just let experts have honest and open dialogues. It would be a million times better if they at least allowed Me…

I think you misunderstood what I am saying. I agree with you, but was trying to make a point that some people do in fact want YouTube to be the arbiter of truth. I do not want that.

I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just pointing out that Youtube's idea of what should be censored is not as settled as basic first grade math is, yet they act like A) it is and B) they are teachers and their users are first graders and it's their job to ensure only the right answers are taught.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#586

Post by version_five »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #526
lupire wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Eric Raymond (who is more famous for his mouth than for his technical achievements) is a libertarian, and billionaires are libertarian, doesn't mean techies are in general.

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 allow for a tyranny of the majority.

There have been discussions, long before covid and largely precipitated by Trump, about how our system only works if we all generally follow some norms and don't abandon them in some kind of populist panic. I would argue this is what's happened here.

It's not acceptable that there are magic words (science says, "public health is a real thing that matters" as you say) that anyone can say that allows government to bypass civil liberties and impose stuff on people. Freedoms only actually exist if there is weight behind them and they can't just be discarded when someone shouts that lives are at stake.

For me it's not a question of disagreeing with any science about how covid is transmitted or vaccines or severity. People should behave sensibly about it and do what they can to limit the impact. Giving power to government just creates populist measures designed to cater to the masses and make them feel good (exactly like a border wall). This is not a power government should have. Call me a fanatic (religious type as you say)

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#587

Post by Valectar »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #568
Valectar wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There is no study showing that masks slow the spread of sars-2 in a community

You say that, and yet "At least ten studies have confirmed the benefit of universal masking in community level analyses"

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

And the website goes on to list each of them, as well as a number of other studies relating to the effectiveness of masking.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#588

Post by version_five »

rajin444 wrote: post #374
handrous wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But of course Covid is killing people, so we should abandon centuries of liberal democratic tradition and hard fought freedoms to continue the great work we've done stopping it. I'm entirely confused by this sentiment. What's been abandoned? Serious question, I have no clue what people mean when they post stuff like this.

Even Biden admitted the moratorium is unconstitutional. Nobody seems to care.

As an aside, you can see the way the parent (comment you replied to) wanted to shift the conversation to some kind of definition of terms argument instead of actually discussing any salient points. And how they jumped on your example and used it as a kind of strawman to dismiss and explain why your point is baseless.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#589

Post by 16bytes »

gibba999 wrote: post #336
16bytes wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it's a valid area of discussion. There are valid ways to critique the effectiveness of masks. To say, however, that: "Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. That's because the virus particles can go right through them. That's still true. They don't work, there's no value. ... There's no signs to say they're preventing disease." Simply discards the science and overall consensus without addressing…

Science is a process, not a democracy. Overall consensus is irrelevant. I know perfectly good scientists who believe cloth masks are useless. They're in the minority, and I disagree with them, but I can't classify reasonable opinions I disagree with a "misinformation." I went against the scientific establishment early in the pandemic advocating for masks, when consensus was that they were useless. The evidence and co…

IIRC, the early consensus wasn't that they were useless, it's that there was no RCT that said they were effective. That's a big difference. Our understanding now is different.

If this was Sen. Paul's only statement--that most masks are ineffective--that would have been a bigger judgement call.

Sen. Paul, however, continued by saying that not only is it a fact they are ineffective, but Dr. Fauci knows this and is thereby lying to the American people.

That's way out of bounds for scientific discourse, and even for differences of opinion in normal discourse.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#590

Post by krapp »

gwright wrote: post #534
suyash wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree, YouTube is in the wrong here. They are no arbitrator of truth or facts, leave that to the courts and allow 'real free speech' in online platforms.

> They are no arbitrator of truth or facts, leave that to the courts Not sure this is a good approach either. Discerning truth and separating fact from fiction isn't a skill that some people have and other's don't. It is a process that requires one to embrace free speech rather than assigning the role of truthsayer to any particular person, group, or institution. Here is John Stuart Mills rationale for free speech: .…

>if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.

Except that doesn't happen. As the saying goes, a lie can travel around the world before the truth laces up its boots. Where is the "clearer perception and livelier impression of truth" being produced by all of the disinformation being spread? Surely, since disinformation is spreading so rapidly and colliding so furiously against truth in the marketplace of ideas, truth should be prevailing everywhere.

No, of course it isn't. Why would it? Both you and John Stuart Mills skipped over the part where embracing free speech actually leads to discernment. It's like people just expect truth to win for reasons.

What's happening is that people don't know what to think, or who to believe, and are being bombarded with far more claims and counterclaims than they have time or ability to thoroughly test. Absent trust in any institution, person or group in which to truest, people are left only with their own uninformed intuition and emotion, which disinformation and propaganda far more effectively feed upon.

Post reply on HN