4 ms·

So if Rand Paul is democratically elected and YouTube silences him, then in effect YouTube is silencing the population that elected Rand Paul. Furthermore (I c

So if Rand Paul is democratically elected and YouTube silences him, then in effect YouTube is silencing the population that elected Rand Paul. Furthermore (I can't see the video) - if he did indeed simply quote two peer-reviewed papers is it right to suspend him? As an exercise, which of the following statements are correct: 1. Gaiter masks will stop you from getting COVID-19 2. Surgical masks will stop you from getting COVID-19 3. KN95 masks will stop you from getting COVID-19 4. N95 masks will stop you from getting COVID-19?

eplanit 5y ago
Yes. With this, they're already doing that to his constituents in Kentucky.
vntok 5y ago
He did not. Watch it.
aweiland 5y ago
Totally silenced. A ban from YouTube comes with a ban from Fox News, NewsMax, Twitter, Facebook, newspapers, local TV stations... /s
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Who said anything about being totally silenced? Are you arguing that being banned from YouTube isn't the same as being silenced to some extent?
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    >Who said anything about being totally silenced? The White House believes you should be banned from all social media not just one if you spread misinformation. Maybe that is not totally silenced, but it is getting close to it. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/16/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-july-16-2021/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
    - krapp 5y ago
      The personal opinion of the White House press secretary doesn't carry the force of law.
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        Psaki was not expressing her opinion but the opinion of the White House at least if her statement is to be believed.
        krapp 5y ago
        It's still just an opinion. Wake me up when the government has actually taken control of all social media platforms and is forcing them to ban anyone.
- theandrewbailey 5y ago
  Not /s in the future, according to Jen Psaki: You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others if you — for providing misinformation out there. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/16/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-july-16-2021/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
gibba999 5y ago
My read of the evidence in 2021: 1. Gaiter masks will nominally reduce your odds of getting COVID-19 (viral loads down perhaps 30%), and more significantly reduce your odds of spreading it 2. Surgical masks will dramatically reduce your odds of getting COVID-19 in public settings (e.g. shopping), and slightly reduce your odds in closer settings (e.g. co-habitating, where it's impossible to keep masks on 100% of the time, and where there is extended exposure) 3. KN95 masks will effectively stop you from getting COVID-19, if used reliably, consistently, and in conjunction with other measures like handwashing and social distancing in public health settings. They will significantly reduce, but not eliminate, odds in closer settings (e.g. co-habitating) 4. N95 masks will be marginally more effective as KN95 if used correctly, and about the same if not All of this presumes authentic masks, and the original variant. I have no idea about delta.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Some scientists have argued that gaiter masks are worse than nothing: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 Obviously the jury is still out, but don't you think it's problematic for a platform to just unilaterally decide the truth? It's literally the opposite of science. Science cannot exist without skepticism. Now if Rand Paul was saying that COVID-19 doesn't exist that's another thing. Saying masks don't work is a statement that requires many qualifications and elaborations. Saying it alone can be both true and false.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  You can just claim that masks prevent you from incurring other viruses and infections, the contraction of which would put anyone in serious danger of death were they to come into contact with COVID.
andybak 5y ago
Why is the obviously incorrect phrase "will stop you" in all of those options? As opposed to a more reasonable "will reduce the probability of"?
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Rand Paul used the dichotomy of "works" vs. "doesn't work" which is in line with "stops" vs. "doesn't stop."
  - darksaints 5y ago
    It's a false dichotomy. None of them will stop covid. Some will just do better than others in different situations.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      sure, but depending on what the claim is specifically, classifying what Rand Paul stated as "misinformation" may be misinformation itself.
    - TechBro8615 5y ago
      Maybe we can have a discussion about it in the comment section of the YouTube video. Oh wait...
      - seizethegdgap 5y ago
        Yes, YouTube, well known and renowned for intelligent mid-to-low-level discussions in the video comments about highly complex topics and not at all a breeding ground for astroturfing, grifting, quackery, selective editing, and charlatanry.
darksaints 5y ago
None of the above. The only mask that will stop you from getting covid are masks that will also stop you from breathing. Different masks have different effectiveness in different environments with different risk levels. Cloth masks may be inappropriate in some environments while being effective in others. Research has consistently shown that 3-point seatbelts are completely inadequate in auto racing environments when compared to modern 5-point harnesses. Passenger cars do not come equipped with 5-point harnesses. Is that a reason to not wear a seatbelt at all?
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I'm not here to argue whether or not cloth masks are safe or not since I'm not a scientist. The point is that there's hardly a consensus and it seems wrong to ban someone who's skeptical and cites peer reviewed research.
  - darksaints 5y ago
    Despite the fact that Rand Paul is being an absolute dunce about this, I agree. It is wrong to ban skepticism, and I see this as an overreaction, but not necessarily in a malicious sense. Because the stakes for humanity are pretty high and any time that happens, you're gonna get overreactions. In sociopolitical subjects, links between humans are indirect and often can be strained and straw-grasping. With subjects like these, it is easy to find loads of research supporting both sides...because it's extremely hard to prove cause and effect in sociological scenarios. Examples: minimum wage and employment rates, drug use and crime rates, tax rates and tax-induced emigration, government spending and poverty, gun ownership and violence. Epidemiology is not like that. Research methods are mature. Humans physiology is more uniform than human psychology. Cause and effect relationships can be strongly identified via experimental means. Peer review actually works reasonably and is generally not politicized. And yet despite the maturity of the field and the strength of the research, we still have politicians saying that vaccines cause autism, that covid is no worse than a seasonal flu, and that masks don't work. So I'm gonna hold my pitchforks when people overreact to bad interpretations to peer reviewed science.

eplanit 5y ago

Yes. With this, they're already doing that to his constituents in Kentucky.

vntok 5y ago

He did not. Watch it.

aweiland 5y ago

Totally silenced. A ban from YouTube comes with a ban from Fox News, NewsMax, Twitter, Facebook, newspapers, local TV stations... /s

endisneigh 5y ago
Who said anything about being totally silenced? Are you arguing that being banned from YouTube isn't the same as being silenced to some extent?
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  >Who said anything about being totally silenced? The White House believes you should be banned from all social media not just one if you spread misinformation. Maybe that is not totally silenced, but it is getting close to it. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/16/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-july-16-2021/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
  - krapp 5y ago
    The personal opinion of the White House press secretary doesn't carry the force of law.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      Psaki was not expressing her opinion but the opinion of the White House at least if her statement is to be believed.
      - krapp 5y ago
        It's still just an opinion. Wake me up when the government has actually taken control of all social media platforms and is forcing them to ban anyone.
theandrewbailey 5y ago
Not /s in the future, according to Jen Psaki: You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others if you — for providing misinformation out there. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/16/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-july-16-2021/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...

gibba999 5y ago

My read of the evidence in 2021: 1. Gaiter masks will nominally reduce your odds of getting COVID-19 (viral loads down perhaps 30%), and more significantly reduce your odds of spreading it 2. Surgical masks will dramatically reduce your odds of getting COVID-19 in public settings (e.g. shopping), and slightly reduce your odds in closer settings (e.g. co-habitating, where it's impossible to keep masks on 100% of the time, and where there is extended exposure) 3. KN95 masks will effectively stop you from getting COVID-19, if used reliably, consistently, and in conjunction with other measures like handwashing and social distancing in public health settings. They will significantly reduce, but not eliminate, odds in closer settings (e.g. co-habitating) 4. N95 masks will be marginally more effective as KN95 if used correctly, and about the same if not All of this presumes authentic masks, and the original variant. I have no idea about delta.

endisneigh 5y ago
Some scientists have argued that gaiter masks are worse than nothing: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 Obviously the jury is still out, but don't you think it's problematic for a platform to just unilaterally decide the truth? It's literally the opposite of science. Science cannot exist without skepticism. Now if Rand Paul was saying that COVID-19 doesn't exist that's another thing. Saying masks don't work is a statement that requires many qualifications and elaborations. Saying it alone can be both true and false.
jimbob45 5y ago
You can just claim that masks prevent you from incurring other viruses and infections, the contraction of which would put anyone in serious danger of death were they to come into contact with COVID.

andybak 5y ago

Why is the obviously incorrect phrase "will stop you" in all of those options? As opposed to a more reasonable "will reduce the probability of"?

endisneigh 5y ago
Rand Paul used the dichotomy of "works" vs. "doesn't work" which is in line with "stops" vs. "doesn't stop."
- darksaints 5y ago
  It's a false dichotomy. None of them will stop covid. Some will just do better than others in different situations.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    sure, but depending on what the claim is specifically, classifying what Rand Paul stated as "misinformation" may be misinformation itself.
  - TechBro8615 5y ago
    Maybe we can have a discussion about it in the comment section of the YouTube video. Oh wait...
    - seizethegdgap 5y ago
      Yes, YouTube, well known and renowned for intelligent mid-to-low-level discussions in the video comments about highly complex topics and not at all a breeding ground for astroturfing, grifting, quackery, selective editing, and charlatanry.

darksaints 5y ago

None of the above. The only mask that will stop you from getting covid are masks that will also stop you from breathing. Different masks have different effectiveness in different environments with different risk levels. Cloth masks may be inappropriate in some environments while being effective in others. Research has consistently shown that 3-point seatbelts are completely inadequate in auto racing environments when compared to modern 5-point harnesses. Passenger cars do not come equipped with 5-point harnesses. Is that a reason to not wear a seatbelt at all?

endisneigh 5y ago
I'm not here to argue whether or not cloth masks are safe or not since I'm not a scientist. The point is that there's hardly a consensus and it seems wrong to ban someone who's skeptical and cites peer reviewed research.
- darksaints 5y ago
  Despite the fact that Rand Paul is being an absolute dunce about this, I agree. It is wrong to ban skepticism, and I see this as an overreaction, but not necessarily in a malicious sense. Because the stakes for humanity are pretty high and any time that happens, you're gonna get overreactions. In sociopolitical subjects, links between humans are indirect and often can be strained and straw-grasping. With subjects like these, it is easy to find loads of research supporting both sides...because it's extremely hard to prove cause and effect in sociological scenarios. Examples: minimum wage and employment rates, drug use and crime rates, tax rates and tax-induced emigration, government spending and poverty, gun ownership and violence. Epidemiology is not like that. Research methods are mature. Humans physiology is more uniform than human psychology. Cause and effect relationships can be strongly identified via experimental means. Peer review actually works reasonably and is generally not politicized. And yet despite the maturity of the field and the strength of the research, we still have politicians saying that vaccines cause autism, that covid is no worse than a seasonal flu, and that masks don't work. So I'm gonna hold my pitchforks when people overreact to bad interpretations to peer reviewed science.