17 ms·
Isn't this how science works, you have new information and you use it to make a better decision.
by pzmTWLwfwJ 6y ago
Isn't this how science works, you have new information and you use it to make a better decision.
- ajsnigrutin 6y agoBut do you censor the people saying there is a better decision? And do you then censor the people that advocated for the former "better decision" at the time when it was 'current'.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Shingbogle 6y agoBut they're not banning random unknown sciences. They're banning conspiracies like tracking chips in vaccines or that the vaccine will kill people. That's not untested science like masks.
- 0xy 6y agoDr Fauci publicly claimed masks were not effective as a means of protecting the supply of masks to healthcare workers, he knew his claims were false at the time he made them. So no, it wasn't "science", it was deliberately misleading public statements.
- rudedogg 6y agoThis was so disappointing to watch happen. It was obvious (even at the time) that it was to keep people from hoarding masks so they were available for healthcare workers. Fauci, the Surgeon General, and everyone else should have refused to lie. Now the damage is done, and more people distrust Science.
- wolco2 6y agoIt happened in many countries around the world at all levels of government. History has shown that blindly following uber global bodies like the WHO can have a massive negative outcomes even with best intentions.
- hef19898 6y agoThe first global body was the League of Nations, if you exclude entities like the British Empire from the perspective of their colonies. When exactly did following the UN or any other body result in desaster?
- wolco2 6y agoThe topic was masks. So following that advice caused many lives lost. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/why-world-health-organization-failed/610063/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/why-world... UN specifically Israeli occupation (1948-Now) Kashmir dispute (1948-Now) Cambodia violence (1975-1979) Somali civil war (1991-Now) Rwandan civil war (1994) Srebrenica Massacre (1995) Darfur conflict in Sudan (2003-Now) Iraq invasion (2003-2011) Rohingya Crisis, Myanmar (2017-Now)
- hef19898 6y agoAnd all of that was caused directly by the UN? Or was more complicated than that, and the UN could do much as the veto powers blocked or delayed things? I'd say it is rather the latter. There were UN troops in Srebrenica, and their failure is a well covered topic. There are multiple resolutions against Israel, the first from the Suez crisis. Most just get ignored, not the least due to US vetos. The Iraq invasion was a purely US thing that had nothing to do with the UN, some NATO members supported it but not all. There is a difference between causing disaster, which the UN didn't, and failing to prevent it, which the UN does. Expecting perfect results from one side and no results at all, or close to jone, from the other is just disengnious.
- wolco2 6y agoThe UN is made up members. Things like US vetos are part of the process and must be included. WHO has a global outlook and you have a person story. Those two conflict more often than not. Telling you masks don't work and then telling you they always worked and you must wear one is a big messaging error that has cost many lives. And the reasons behind are political. Trust with me has been broken. If it's important I'll include a link with detailed context for each and throw in a few more examples for you. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.trtworld.com/americas/twelve-times-the-un-has-failed-the-world-21666/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.trtworld.com/americas/twelv...
- belorn 6y agoFrom the Swedish public health agency: "We do not currently recommend face masks in public settings since the scientific evidence around the effectiveness of face masks in combatting the spread of infection is unclear. However, there may be situations where face masks can be useful despite the uncertain state of knowledge about the effects. Face masks must always be seen as complementary to other recommendations: stay at home when you have symptoms, wash your hands regularly and keep at a distance from others." - https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency-of-sweden/communicable-disease-control/covid-19/prevention/ https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency... As a source for this they have this page with 37 different papers/studies: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utbrott/aktuella-utbrott/covid-19/statistik-och-analyser/analys-och-prognoser/litteraturlista-for-munskydd/ https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utb... So... the science depend a lot of who you ask and the context of the statement.
- j8hn 6y agoNext...Sweden is banned from YouTube.
- rightbyte 6y agoIt is a nice touch of doublethink for Youtube to be able to ban different mutually exclusive "misinformation" depending on region.
- CyanBird 6y agoI mean that assumes they care, they don't really, they are merely minimizing brand risks and therefore maximizing profits They will say wherever they have to say to maximize profits and reduce losses
- blub 6y agoThe science does not depend on who you ask. As I was looking at this back in February / March there were plenty of studies dating back years or decades, looking at N95 and surgical masks and their role in preventing the spread of respiratory infections. The WHO and all western countries were claiming contrary to those studies that masks do not work and should not be worn. Then when things got more critical, EU countries did a 180 and started making masks mandatory or recommending them. Finally the WHO commissioned a meta-analysis and lo and behold in June it turned out that masks do work. The Swedish public health agency's quite lonely in the opinion it holds now. But even so, I don't see why Sweden's or its health agency's opinion should count for anything in all of this. If anything I'd rather listen to what Taiwan, the KCDC or CCDC have to say, since they actually have some results to show besides empty words and opinions.
- j8hn 6y agoI believe there wasn't much scientific evidence that non n95 mask helped. Especially because of the fit test. It was even unknown for n95. I remember early on debating people whether masks worked and they pointed to the lack of scientific studies.
- blub 6y agoWhen one compares the advice and recommendations related to SARS with those for SARS-CoV-2 it becomes obvious that the latter could only be explained by dishonesty or stupidity.
- j8hn 6y agoYou're right. My issue is that why did US health officials say masks were not effective against respiratory infections, when health officials from Asian countries had deemed them effective. Why didn't we have the science? Respiratory infections aren't new. I remember debating people early in the outbreak about the use of masks and they were pointing out that there was little scientific evidence on the use of masks, especially non n-95.
- nso95 6y agoThey lied because they didn't want medical professionals to run out of masks
- daveguy 6y agoSource? From what I remember the message very early on wasn't that masks don't work, it was "save the masks for the front line workers"
- j8hn 6y agoHere is a short video from the CDC in March of this year. https://twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1238487810874789889 https://twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1238487810874789889 If you search Google news for "masks" between February and March you can see where the surgeon general and others were saying that masks may increase the likelihood of infection because of touching your face.
- konjin 6y agoI'm glad someone spreading lies like that will be ever banned from youtube.
- stkdump 6y agoDid you even watch the video? 1. He says there is no need to wear masks in public "at this time". 2. He says there is no evidence that masks protect you against infections (which is of course something that can and did change over time) 3. He mentioned that touching your face can be dangerous, not that wearing masks increases the risk. I don't think anyone disputed this then or now. That is something else than people saying now that there is no evidence that masks help, because now we have evidence.
- wolco2 6y agoThis is how the politics of science can works. Masks may run out is the fear. Do not be honest and tell everyone they don't work. Masks are restocked, force everyone to wear a mask.
- tacocataco 6y agoWhat happened to rationing? Are we to "free" to go back to this method of resource distribution?
- raxxorrax 6y agoThere is nothing scientific on the politics of science then. With that strategy you will have less and less people listening to you, because a subset will always find out you have lied.
- lki876 6y agoIndeed. Something thought to be right was actually wrong. Happens all the time. And of course something thought to be wrong was actually right. This is why disallowing "misinformation" is utterly stupid.
- dtech 6y agoThis is not an argument to allow any fearmongering and actively spreading a harmful message. You can use this argument to say nothing should ever be forbidden/punished to say ever.
- lki876 6y ago> This is not an argument to allow any fearmongering So let's ban information that claims corona isn't that bad then, because it's DANGEROUS and you should BE SCARED and PEOPLE ARE DYING and if you don't wear the mask YOU COULD KILL PEOPLE.
- jstanley 6y ago> You can use this argument to say nothing should ever be forbidden/punished to say ever. Yes!
- dtech 6y agoOk, so everyone should be allowed to broadcast, promote and advertise: "all white people are inherently evil and criminal and should all be exterminated, go out and shoot every and kill every white person you see!"?
- roenxi 6y agoBanning everyone who disagrees with the current state of the science is also not how science works; and yet YouTube is going to attempt (and fail) to do just that. YouTube is almost certainly going to be banning literal doctors with actual PHDs from expressing scientific opinions which later turn out to be substantiated. The article says this ban includes material that "explicitly disputes health authorities’ guidance on self-isolation or social distancing.". There are some rather eminent doctors who do exactly that. Social distancing policy is a political, not a scientific, question of trade-offs.
- sampo 6y ago> YouTube is almost certainly going to be banning literal doctors with actual PHDs from expressing scientific opinions which later turn out to be substantiated. How are they going to deal with situations where health authorities in different countries have different positions? Like right now, Germany recommends masks and Sweden doesn't. Are they going to censor anti-mask videos in Germany and pro-mask videos in Sweden?
- gitrog 6y ago> YouTube is almost certainly going to be banning literal doctors with actual PHDs from expressing scientific opinions which later turn out to be substantiated. To be fair, Youtube shouldn't be the platform where doctors express their scientific opinion or try to win over support.
- dna_polymerase 6y agoWhy not? It pretty accessible and a nicely done video does more for the education of the general public than some pdf on a server behind a Springer paywall.
- gitrog 6y agoI just mean that they should have their work peer reviewed first.
- CryptoPunk 6y agoA lot of scientific dialogue now happens through mediums like Youtube. Scientists use it as a research tool, and a way to disseminate information to other scientists. Censoring discourse is extremely dangerous, and its detrimental effect on scientific advancement is just one of the reasons why.
- serial_dev 6y agoThe issue is not that they got it wrong the first time(or lied on purpose to defend the economy, or to prevent panic and hoarding). The issue is that people were marked as conspiracy theorist nutjobs for holding some views that were the official recommendation a week ago (or became the recommendation a week later). If officials can get it wrong, why would you censor your "drunk uncle" from getting it wrong?
- coldtea 6y agoThere wasn't any new information, it was just policy decisions hiding the information. 1st stage: "We don't have enough masks to go around, we need them for doctors and such -- ok, let's tell citizens "don't wear masks, as they do no good" 2nd stage: "We have ample of masks now imported. OK, let's tell citizens they have to wear masks".
- csomar 6y agoThe problem is that govts around the world didn't do this in a scientific fashion. They had mask shortages and wanted to keep the masks for health workers and also not make people worry. Now they have masks and want everyone to wear one. Very hard to have any credibility after a few similar interactions. This is not about speech all over the world (maybe except China), this is about the political elites losing leadership.
- jmull 6y ago??? If mask availability is limited, doesn't it make sense to use them where they have the most positive impact? Isn't that just good resource management? That seems good for credibility.
- NeutronStar 6y agoIt's the lying and saying mask are of no use then doing a 180 and forcing everyone to wear one. Nothing would say shut if they said it was because of the low stock.
- clinta 6y agoSure it does. But lying about that as the reasons and saying masks don't work is misinformation. And that is what the government health officials said. They intentionally engaged in a misinformation campaign. And now they are considered the authority against which any other opinion will be judged misinformation.
- swiley 6y agoExcommunicating people who disagree with you is how the catholic church works not science.
- 0-_-0 6y agoYou won't get new information if you ban anything that disagrees with the old information