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

791–800 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#791

Post by rwcarlsen »

nicetryguy wrote: post #536
rwcarlsen wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We allow people to make personal choices all the time that negatively impact others. I am acknowledging the gray area and have been the entire time. I'm saying that on the particular issue of seatbelts (and mask wearing) - I prefer to let people make their own choices being fully aware that it could cause some amount indirect harm to others. Maybe I hate the color yellow - people can still have yellow cars. I hate br…

> I prefer to let people make their own choices being fully aware that it could cause some amount indirect harm to others. Some indirect harm? This is life or death for older and immunocompromised people. You are a monster. I can't fathom your inhumanity.

You really want covid to be categorically different than things we engage with every day and have since humans first began to walk the earth - but it really isn't. We make these sort of tradeoffs and engage with this sort of dilemma constantly. Nothing new or earth-shattering.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#792

Post by kgarten »

timr wrote: post #789
kgarten wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So I don't know what you are arguing: We have a lot of evidence on the effectiveness of masks in relationship to preventing droplet infection.

We don't have so much about COVID 19. On the community level it looks promising for me, the papers are flawed but coming out.

What I am missing ... where is the other side of the coin. All models are wrong but some are useful. The particle simulations are wrong, but pretty useful (and I don't see why COVID should behave differently). What model do you base your assumption that masks don't work? Is there research that supports your claims? All science is bad science :) Some is useful.

> survey responses (= bad data)? So any research based on survey responses is bad? It's a standard method in policy research. What data would you use to show the community effect of mask wearing?

I'm usually listening critically to experts in a field (not to dentists or surgeons), it seems people who claim masks don't work are not virologists and have not worked with the virus (COVID19): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Ciesek

Both strong in the pro mask camp. Are there virologists working on COVID 19 (in the lab) that are on your side of the argument?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#793

Post by kgarten »

timr wrote: post #788
kgarten wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

> The "scientific consensus" was that the earth was the center of the universe.

Yes, and then somebody found a better model (that's also still wrong) yet explained more and we used it. So my question, what's your better model you base your assumptions on? Any scientific paper is wrong, you can find problems with any of them. Just, critique is easy and often doesn't lead anywhere.

my point: The scientific consensus right now is wearing masks help. This is supported by physics (particle simulations), medicine (respiratory disease and their transmission .. and a lot of other fields.

You say there's little data ... come on than make this > well-controlled experiment overturning consensus thinking

you can be famous!

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/10/22/national/scienc...

Check the video, people are trying what would be an experimental setup you would accept? That is also ethically OK.

We have both controlled experiments that have reduced validity in the real world because of the artificial conditions and we have some more messy real world evidence. Seems OK to me.

The people I see on the other side don't offer an alternative model. Also a lot of the criticism comes from people who don't seem to have virology /immunology etc background.

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

Yes, my point was these papers are rushed. It can be bias, it can be also that reviewers have their expertise that tells them the paper fits the evidence.

Change happens over models/explanations. I don't see any new ones from the "Masks don't work" folks. Just criticism (that's easy ... I'm happy to point out all the flaws in any paper you present me. If you want to kill a paper in peer review it's super easy ...)

For policy decisions shouldn't you use the current scientific consesus,however flawed it is? Is there a better solution? Otherwise you are just relying on your gut feeling. Good luck.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#794

Post by kgarten »

kgarten wrote: post #793
timr wrote: post #788

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 thi…

> The "scientific consensus" was that the earth was the center of the universe. Yes, and then somebody found a better model (that's also still wrong) yet explained more and we used it. So my question, what's your better model you base your assumptions on? Any scientific paper is wrong, you can find problems with any of them. Just, critique is easy and often doesn't lead anywhere. my point: The scientific consensus ri…

forgot: here's the paper (it's just mentioned in Japanese in the video) https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20

your controlled experiment with Sars-COV-2 particles :)

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#795

Post by kgarten »

timr wrote: post #777
kgarten wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wearing a mask is a medical intervention for you?? wearing a mask is not about protecting you, it's protecting other people. If you don't value other people's lives, don't wear one it won't help you personally. Ok ... so where is the evidence that they don't work? Current scientific consensus is on my side of the debate: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-0280…

> Ok ... so where is the evidence that they don't work? I provided you with the link to the WHO meta-analysis of all research literature surrounding masks prior to the pandemic. Here it is again: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... This covers 172 publications on masks and disease leading up to the pandemic. It is far more comprehensive than any particular paper or editorial you cherry-pic…

Your lancet study with 172 publications comes to this conclusion:

"These data also suggest that wearing face masks protects people (both health-care workers and the general public) against infection by these coronaviruses."

Again, were is evidence that they don't work?

For example if cloth masks would not block around 40% in contorlled experiments: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20

Masks are not the magic one thing. Yet, it's one of the measures that helps. Don't put too much trust in masks, add social distancing and other preventive measures.

Yet, I don't see what the rational behind "they don't work" is. They lower the risk of getting infected and more important to infect others (anything in front of your mouth will do as it stops droplets ... basic physics. how much it does it that's debatable.

If I have a very wet speaking language, and am infected with COVID. You tell me I'm infecting the same amount of people if I wear a mask as if I would not wear one? (given the rest is the same??). Sorry, my understanding of physics does not agree with you. Not even going for virology or other topics.

Do you have a novel particle model we can use that explains your assumptions? You should test it in a lab.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#796

Post by kgarten »

DrJones1098 wrote: post #758
kgarten wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here's a newer paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24115-7 (no evidence ... just guesses ... just nature level publication guesses ... probably all wrong)

The entire state of Texas lifted all Covid restrictions around March? Had only 16% vaccination rates and had record low levels of Covid infections for 6 months up until recently with apparently the Delta variant. So don't understand why actual reality contradicts this paper. If you tell me that millions of Texans followed social distancing rules on their own without a citation, it will be humorous.

About Texas: https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/12/texas-coronavirus-gr...

Check the graph about mask mandates ... Hoping the best for Texas, yet this looks bad.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#797

Post by brigandish »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #772
merpnderp wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is little reason to doubt a well fitted (K)N95 or other counterpart works well. But cloth masks are unproven to help and there are many other variables that could be in play here. For instance, people who wear masks might spend much less time within 6' of each other, be more likely to be vaccinated, or some other confounding factor to mask effectiveness. Also I've not seen a single cloth mask particulate test t…

For instance, people who wear masks might spend much less time within 6' of each other, be more likely to be vaccinated, or some other confounding factor to mask effectiveness. Neither of those factors are true where I am and there are very few new cases. I don’t deny that there could be confounding factors. But, and I’m using the word literally correctly here, my supermarket is literally operating as normal with soc…

> I’m not sure what other confounding factor is powerful enough to counteract hundreds of people in close proximity breathing the same air if cloth masks have an insignificant effect.

The difference in populations. If your population is younger, fitter, lighter skinned (and that's just three of the most important of the many factors found in severity of the disease) then there could be the same number of cases in both populations but yours has a higher number of asymptomatic or symptomatic but self-misdiagnosed cases.

Unless both populations are being mass tested weekly? Or do they only get a test if they show symptoms…

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#798

Post by jessaustin »

cvwright wrote: post #297
cogman10 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You want to argue that Covid results are due to politics? Then maybe you can tell us why blue states NJ, NY, and MA have the highest death rates in the US?

One of the reasons for that just resigned.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#799

Post by timr »

kgarten wrote: post #794
kgarten wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "scientific consensus" was that the earth was the center of the universe. Yes, and then somebody found a better model (that's also still wrong) yet explained more and we used it. So my question, what's your better model you base your assumptions on? Any scientific paper is wrong, you can find problems with any of them. Just, critique is easy and often doesn't lead anywhere. my point: The scientific consensus ri…

forgot: here's the paper (it's just mentioned in Japanese in the video) https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 your controlled experiment with Sars-COV-2 particles :)

from the paper (emphasis mine):

> Here, we developed an airborne transmission SIMULATOR of infectious SARS-CoV-2-containing droplets/aerosols produced by human respiration and coughs and assessed the transmissibility of the infectious droplets/aerosols and the ability of various types of face masks to block the transmission.

Mannequin heads in a box is perhaps evidence of something, but it has little to do with actual humans who don't live in tiny boxes with masks sealed to their real-world faces.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#800

Post by kgarten »

timr wrote: post #799
kgarten wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

forgot: here's the paper (it's just mentioned in Japanese in the video) https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 your controlled experiment with Sars-COV-2 particles :)

from the paper (emphasis mine): > Here, we developed an airborne transmission SIMULATOR of infectious SARS-CoV-2-containing droplets/aerosols produced by human respiration and coughs and assessed the transmissibility of the infectious droplets/aerosols and the ability of various types of face masks to block the transmission. Mannequin heads in a box is perhaps evidence of something , but it has little to do with actu…

lol ... yes simulations and models are completely useless (wake up: ALL models are wrong, but some are useful). If you cannot come up with a better explanation why masks should not work, you are just somebody who's not accepting the current scientific consensus.

So where's your experiment showing the contrary? (With real humans and covid particles?) Where is your evidence?

So we have simulations, evidence that it controls community spread, etc. Every expert that I hear speak out says that masks work. Can you find any virologist working in a lab on COVID who claims masks don't work?

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33431650/

Post reply on HN