16 ms·

My wife and I were looking into traveling from the US to Europe this summer, if the borders had opened up earlier. At the time, Germany was not allowing cloth

My wife and I were looking into traveling from the US to Europe this summer, if the borders had opened up earlier. At the time, Germany was not allowing cloth masks on public transport. N95, surgical masks, or stay home. So here we have a sitting US senator being censored for agreeing with the German health authorities. WTF?!?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kube-system 5y ago
If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough" he could have said that. But he's a senator. His statement was a dog whistle to his base. They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking. The word "prevent" is a red herring -- nothing is 100% -- the goal is to decrease infection, not prevent it.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  The phrases "doesn't work" and "doesn't prevent" have become staples of the COVID disinformation toolkit. Anything that is not exactly 100% effective transforms into "doesn't work" in the narrative. Educated experts will never say something is 100% effective, so this is always an easy way for detractors to "prove" that the experts agree XYZ doesn't work. EDIT: Other examples: Some people have gotten pregnant while on birth control, therefore birth control "doesn't work". Some people wearing seat belts still die in car crashes, therefore seat belts "don't work". This is a tried and true misinformation tactic.
  - dublin 5y ago
    Even the pores in an N95 mask are not small enough to prevent viral transmission, so the actual science says your magic mask talisman is voodoo bullshit. People are even starting to do their own tests to show the impact of mask mandates on children, who have never been at significant risk from this virus, anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul5E5BUrII4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul5E5BUrII4
    - kube-system 5y ago
      Scientific experts have never been confused about what the '95' in 'N95' stands for.
      - arminiusreturns 5y ago
        Back when this all started I posted a list of the different mask ratings (I started by wearing p100 everywhere)... and got downvoted into oblivion. No meta comment, just the facts on mask ratings. Says a lot about hn.
    - tzs 5y ago
      > Even the pores in an N95 mask are not small enough to prevent viral transmission, so the actual science says your magic mask talisman is voodoo bullshit There are at least five mechanisms by which a filter can stop particles from getting through. Only one of them depends on the gaps being smaller than the particles. Briefly, 1. Big particles don't fit between the fibers of the filter. Think fish in a fish net. This is called sieving. 2. Particles too small for sieving but heavier than the surrounding flow don't make the turns as well as the surrounding flow when the flow goes around the fibers. The particles can get embedded in the fibers. This mechanism is called inertial impaction. 3. The smallest might be too small to actually be affected much by the flow of the surrounding fluid through the filter. The move by diffusion, and many will randomly hit the fibers and get stuck. 4. Particles too big for diffusion but too light for inertial impaction still can run into fibers and get stuck. This is called interception. 5. Some filters have an electrostatic charge which can help trap particles. The effectiveness of sieving, inertial impaction, and interception all follow S shaped curves that start out low for small particles, then at some point start rising, and then level out. The sieving curve's rise is almost vertical. The rise for inertial impaction is steep but not nearly as steep as it is for sieving. The curve for interception's rise is much more relaxed. The effectiveness for diffusion goes the other way. Much more effective for very small particles, then above some size drops down and is low from then one. When you put all these together, you get a curve that is effective at the small end, and at some point as size goes up effectiveness drops, reaching a minimum, and then rises again to reach high effectiveness for particles above some certain size. More detail here [1]. [1] http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.com/library/files/documents/pdfs/042665.pdf http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.com/library/files/document...
  - cvwright 5y ago
    From "Follow the science" to "Who cares if it works or not?" in 17 short months...
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Rand knows this 100%, and I find it pretty fascinating from a creative perspective to watch him speak on these topics. He's a senator and an MD. He is well aware of how infection control works, but he also knows that his ultimate job as a politician is to make arguments that will resonate with his constituents. He knows exactly what landmines to throw into a sentence to make it mean one thing to an expert, but sound like the opposite when it's on the news. This is why he gets under the skin of people like Fauci so bad.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      > he also knows that his ultimate job as a politician is to make arguments that will resonate with his constituents Wider context check, his job as a politician is to serve his constituents by leading, even when it may be difficult. Pandering to the lazy and ignorant in a state of perpetual campaigning is an utter dereliction of duty.
      - ReadEvalPost 5y ago
        As of May 2021 vaccine hesitancy by % of group is highest among PhDs: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v... Funny how one's enemies are always the lazy ignorant ones.
        mindslight 5y ago
        Wearing a mask is inconvenient and much of the resistance is just people being lazy and then rationalizing it. Furthermore, people who go for the same old talking points without acknowledging counterarguments are by definition ignorant. I'm no fan of the democrats either, and I'd say there is a lot of lazy/ignorant campaigning on their part as well. But on this topic at least the democrats acknowledged the pandemic and aimed for some type of response. There are actually conservative approaches to many of the problems facing our society. But rather than adopting those positions and making public debate be about the merits of conservative/progressive approaches, the republican party has chosen a path of simply denying that the problems exist at all. This cannot stand.
  - chlodwig 5y ago
    Is it disinformation to say "the rythmn method is not an effective form of birth control"? Or is it disinformation to say, "the rythmn method is an effective form of birth control"?
    - kube-system 5y ago
      Context and intent is important. The CDC describes that method as "Least Effective". https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/contraceptive_methods_508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/p... If we had no other method, then it might be reasonable to call it effective, in comparison to doing nothing. Given that better options exist, it is not very reasonable to call it effective without qualification. If someone chooses to intentionally reduce a conversation to an "effective/ineffective" dichotomy to deliberately mislead or obscure conversations, then it might be disinformation. Disinformation can consist entirely of factual statements.
      - chlodwig 5y ago
        If someone chooses to intentionally reduce a conversation to an "effective/ineffective" dichotomy to deliberately mislead or obscure conversations, then it might be disinformation. Disinformation can consist entirely of factual statements. Actually, a good case for banning ALL discussion of mask effectiveness on Twitter as being disinformation, since the character limit basically forces turning discussion into simplified dichotomy.
        kube-system 5y ago
        "deliberately" is the key word. Brevity for the sake of expeditiousness or practicality is different than brevity for the sake of deception or ulterior motive.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  - roenxi 5y ago
    I'm not sure this tack is sufficient to defend YouTube's policy. This is quite close to arguing that a sitting senator shouldn't have opinions on what government policy is meant to be achieving. Rand Paul is (1) elected (2) holds a medical license. YouTube is suspending him because (1) he is disagreeing with government policy and (2) they don't like his medical opinion. I think it is fair to say you are defending (1) here? He is far more qualified to decide what the public discourse is than you, I and YouTube's censorship team.
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      Not objecting to or defending the policy, just pointing out that Rounding 99% down to “doesn’t work” is a common disinformation tactic to be aware of when you hear it.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      YouTube doesn't have any responsibility (especially legal) to the public discourse. It's weird that people have decided that privately owned companies should be required to do things they don't want to do, in the name of freedom.
      - iammisc 5y ago
        > YouTube doesn't have any responsibility (especially legal) to the public discourse. Of course it does, should the government decide it does. Just like how the Civil Rights acts mandated that certain private businesses have responsibilities to serve certain classes of citizens equally. Just like the federal housing law requires landlords, corporate or not, to rent out to all people. The government is allowed to mandate whatever it wants to benefit the public (the source of its power) so long as such a mandate is not prevented by a higher law. The courts have found that these laws are constitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v... > countered that the restrictions requiring adequate accommodation for African Americans were unquestionably related to interstate travel and that Congress, under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, certainly had the power to address such a matter in law. Apparently, all the US government would need to do is argue that YouTube, as a multi-state corporation, is subject to interstate commerce regulations, which is very precedented.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    That’s not “misinformation.” It’s a perfectly legitimate argument against ineffective government mandates. In a cost-benefit balancing framework, it points out that the benefits will be much less than expected.
    - zR0x 5y ago
      What’s legitimate is subjective. Rand Paul is too much of a troll to be given legitimacy
    - cogman10 5y ago
      > 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 political issue. The countries that faired the worst all turned COVID into a game of the left vs right. You can't say masking and social distancing don't work or are ineffective when 40% of the population goes out of it's way to not wear masks, wear them under their nose, and decides to hold big rallies and gathering to celebrate how much they hate wearing masks.
      - cvwright 5y ago
        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?
        cogman10 5y ago
        Just because a state is red or blue, does not mean that everyone in that state is a democrat or republican. It's not binary. And, in particular, with infectious disease a few bad apples spoil the bunch. Can you tell us why the current delta deaths are pretty much entirely the unvaccinated? Care to take a stab at what the #1 predictor of vaccine status is? [1] Also, maybe a shocker to you, but densely populated states (such as NJ, NY, and MA) tend to do poorly when a communicable disease hits. It spreads fast and the hospitals are overwhelmed. [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250123 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
  - Natsu 5y ago
    I hate the word "dog whistle" because they let people sub in what they think the person said for what they actually said. I have seen otherwise intelligent people who could not even come up with a convincing straw man of what the other side believes for longstanding debates like abortion due to their bubbles. > Some people have gotten pregnant while on birth control, therefore birth control "doesn't work". Some people wearing seat belts still die in car crashes, therefore seat belts "don't work". This is a tried and true misinformation tactic. Now look at this from the other perspective: You have an angry person from the other side of the political spectrum insisting to them that their eyes are lying to them and that their opinions should be censored. Would this be effective persuasion to you? That's why I say the answer is to add context. To explain how things work and how we know things. There's a great comment on this very thread about the various mechanisms by which masks capture particles for one example. Or with vaccines, it's not "works vs. doesn't" but that it works X% of the time in preventing infection, reduces the period for which you're infectious by Y, and decreases the chance of serious infection by Z%. We should be making the case that going from unvaccinated to vaccinated reduces your odds of something bad happening from 2% to 0.0002%. You will note that this doesn't deny their observations, it explains them and recontextualizes them. This is also part of how I filter opinions on topics, those who can't explain the hows and the whys do not have any useful information to offer and can be ignored.
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      The term dog whistle is regularly used as a covert form of Ad Hominem that I find logically annoying, basically "ignore everything this person said because" insert assumption of what was meant and derogatory term about political affiliation. We see this lots in our media and it seems they are trying to do our thinking for us, rather than letting us draw our own conclusions. Face to Face, and in the past, we were much more civil to one another.
      - TMWNN 5y ago
        >The term dog whistle is regularly used as a covert form of Ad Hominem that I find logically annoying, basically "ignore everything this person said because" insert assumption of what was meant and derogatory term about political affiliation. Agreed. "Dog whistle" basically means "I can't find something to attack in what ideological opponent said, so I'm going to pretend that what he said actually means something else, and attack that instead".
- xanaxagoras 5y ago
  > If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough" he could have said that. He could have, but he didn't. You're not his editor. > But he's a senator. He's also a physician. He might know something about infectious diseases that you don't. > His statement was a dog whistle to his base. Maybe it was. So what? > They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking. It's his prerogative to take whatever position he wants to take. He's a physician and an elected member of the United States Senate. I for one want to hear his expertise, even if it disagrees with the conclusions you've already made.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Fortunately, you can. He's provided a list of alternate locations for his video. They just aren't YouTube.
  - patmcc 5y ago
    >>I for one want to hear his expertise, even if it disagrees with the conclusions you've already made. That's fine. YouTube doesn't want to host it, because in their view it's harmful. What's the problem?
    - tomohawk 5y ago
      Youtube is a monopoly. Monopolies must not be allowed to infringe on our rights.
    - tw600040 5y ago
      So if some restaurant business says X (gays, christians, asians etc) not welcome we don't want to host them, that's fine too?
      - smorgusofborg 5y ago
        The groups you cite are civil rights relevant. Do you think Rand Paul's thoughts are an expression of his religion or evidence of a handicap?
- poopypoopington 5y ago
  This, he doesn't care about the science or saving lives. He cares about maintaining and growing his power and he thinks the way to do that is with these sorts of dog whistles to his base.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    There are a set of politicians who believe that long term the best option for getting their preferred policies into law is by doing everything possible to get and keep their party in power. I assume they have the best of intentions, but the end result is that anything is permissable if they think it will lead to that outcome. I'm sure we can all (left or right) think of some who fit this description.
    - jimmygrapes 5y ago
      Yep: https://www.bamn.com/ https://www.bamn.com/
- rayiner 5y ago
  They want to discredit mask mandates. Pointing out that they won’t work in practice, because people will mostly use these cloth masks that work poorly, is a perfectly legitimate basis for discrediting mask mandates that is also based on the science. It’s like pointing out that an assault weapons ban won’t meaningfully reduce homicides because the vast majority of homicides are committed using handguns. That’s a perfectly legitimate argument.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    Have you watched the video? He's not making a nuanced argument about mask mandates being undermined by people using ineffective masks.
  - reubens 5y ago
    The quote mentioned that store-bought masks don't prevent infection. He didn't say that they work poorly. The recommendations suggest that having any mask is better than having no mask.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      Whether there is any difference between those two assertions depends strongly on your implicit cost-benefit outlook. Liberals typically subscribe to a “any measure even one with a small benefit is worth it.” Conservatives usually feel the opposite.
      - throwaway5752 5y ago
        That is false. He is not arguing, "they don't provide enough benefit to justify inconveniencing people". He is saying they are ineffective, which is an intentional sleight of hand argument that focuses not being effective in blocking the virus from being inhaled while ignoring that they are effective at reducing the velocity of airborne particules when exhaled and distance at which the virus can be transmitted to others. Which, on the aggregate, is effective. It is grossly dishonest and as a surgeon, he knows this. It's filthy, disgusting political strategy that is killing people to try work a wedge issue for '22. https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-rand-paul-introduces-legislation-repeal-mask-mandates-public-transportation-%C2%A0 https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-rand-paul-introduces-leg... is further proof that he is not entering the public debate in good faith and in service of public health. We have not reached herd immunity, and had not at the time he introduced this. As a member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pension as well as Homeland Security and Government Affairs, there is no doubt he had access to to better data on this than the general public. I would love for him to say "I am a conservative and I'd rather some people die than to even allow the mildest mask laws" so we could have an honest debate. He wants to frame this as an individual freedom question, and wants to deny the deaths/illness that are the consequence because it harms his rhetorical position - or really, his future career in politics. That might raise the idea of an individual's right to not get sick and die as a result of someone else's decisions. We do not allow people to drive intoxicated in the US for this reason, as well as a host of other regulations.
- whiddershins 5y ago
  This whole dog whistle thing is just a way to put whatever interpretation on someone's words you feel like.
  - hobs 5y ago
    No, it was literally a strategy explicitly used and still used by political operatives to say what they want to say without constraint, and have people defend their bullshit language. "In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing former president Richard Nixon's Southern strategy, speculated that terms like "states' rights" were used for dog-whistling:[27][28][29] You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes. And all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[30]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Well, that’s the entire point of a dog whistle. They’re intentionally vague enough to encourage listeners to draw their own conclusions. They’re not hard to identify if you understand the viewpoints of the listeners or even just observe their reactions. If two groups like a statement, but they both thought it meant a different thing, that’s probably a dog whistle. Take for instance: “Vote for kube-system, he’s one of us. He thinks congress should do what’s right for Americans and their families; end the dishonesty in Washington, and protect the rights and values you deserve.” What demographic am I talking to? Who are the dishonest politicians? What rights and values? Could be anyone!
    - whiddershins 5y ago
- vimy 5y ago
  I find mentioning dog whistles as an argument to discredit someone unconvincing. It’s a way to twist someone's words to whatever you want. Dog whistle = Someone said something but since I can read minds I know he/she meant something else.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Yes, in times like this, other's apparent power to read minds is simply amazing. What I would give to have such ability!
- syshum 5y ago
  I am pretty sure a large number of people on "your side" (for the record I am on Rand's side on this) want to prevent it We have evidence of this First you said "2 weeks to flatten the curve" we did that, and flattened the curve hospitals were saved ... but you were not appeased then you said "a few months to reduce the deaths" we did that and death rate dropped... but you were not appeased Then you said "a few more months to reduce the infection rates" we did that and the infection rate dropped ...but you were not appeased Then you said "a few MORE months to the vaccine" we did that and got the jab ...but you were not appeased We have now come the conclusion that you will accept nothing less than a complete eradication of COVID which by all expert account is impossible. I am unwilling to cede anymore of my freedom to your demands.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - robotresearcher 5y ago
    > we did that and got the jab ...but you were not appeased No, not enough of us did that. For measles and polio we did. No one is asking you to wear a measles mask, and measles is very contagious.
    - syshum 5y ago
      Thanks for admitting that you are treating this like Polio, and not like the Flu... Treating COVID like polio is foolish, and naive. All indications are COVID will be an annual thing like the flu, chances are mutations will be more transmissible but less deadly (and the data is bearing this out) Chances are we will need annual "booster" or other vaccine just like the flu... We do not mandate people get the annual flu shot, nor should we mandate people get the COVID vaccine. So the question is do you support mask mandates, lock down, and economic destruction for the annual flu? I do not.
      - robotresearcher 5y ago
        The question is how to get the fraction of people vaccinated high enough, so that costly mask+behavior mandates are obviated. Mask wearing and behavior changes last year were massively effective against flu, by accident. Flu is usually much less deadly than COVID. That factor matters in how we treat it. (edit: added data) The 2017-2018 flu season was an historically bad one in the US, resulting in an estimated 30,453 hospitalizations the whole season. The 7 day moving average for new COVID hospital admissions is 89,977 today, and peaked at about 260K in a single week in January.
- csomar 5y ago
  Are surgical/N95 masks used correctly, though? Most people do not seem to be aware that 1. they last a few hours, 2. you shouldn't remove/touch/wear them again and 3. they are not re-usable. Masks are great if used correctly, otherwise they are massive vector of the virus and everyone is taking it with them.
  - slownews45 5y ago
    The idea that my N95 doesn't work after a few hours is ridiculous. If you do wood working you know this. Even a few hour hold mask makes an AMAZING difference. I've seen doctors wear masks for full 12 hours shifts.
- boredumb 5y ago
  The only things that hear dog whistles are dogs.
lamontcg 5y ago
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 different arguments about the efficacy of masks.
- xienze 5y ago
  > 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?
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Another poster explained this. The physics around this is not as simple as you might expect.
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    Droplets
raxxorrax 5y ago
In practice people still use cloth masks and nobody checks this. Doesn't excuse the censorship at all.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kube-system 5y ago

If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough" he could have said that. But he's a senator. His statement was a dog whistle to his base. They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking. The word "prevent" is a red herring -- nothing is 100% -- the goal is to decrease infection, not prevent it.

ryandrake 5y ago
The phrases "doesn't work" and "doesn't prevent" have become staples of the COVID disinformation toolkit. Anything that is not exactly 100% effective transforms into "doesn't work" in the narrative. Educated experts will never say something is 100% effective, so this is always an easy way for detractors to "prove" that the experts agree XYZ doesn't work. EDIT: Other examples: Some people have gotten pregnant while on birth control, therefore birth control "doesn't work". Some people wearing seat belts still die in car crashes, therefore seat belts "don't work". This is a tried and true misinformation tactic.
- dublin 5y ago
  Even the pores in an N95 mask are not small enough to prevent viral transmission, so the actual science says your magic mask talisman is voodoo bullshit. People are even starting to do their own tests to show the impact of mask mandates on children, who have never been at significant risk from this virus, anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul5E5BUrII4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul5E5BUrII4
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Scientific experts have never been confused about what the '95' in 'N95' stands for.
    - arminiusreturns 5y ago
      Back when this all started I posted a list of the different mask ratings (I started by wearing p100 everywhere)... and got downvoted into oblivion. No meta comment, just the facts on mask ratings. Says a lot about hn.
  - tzs 5y ago
    > Even the pores in an N95 mask are not small enough to prevent viral transmission, so the actual science says your magic mask talisman is voodoo bullshit There are at least five mechanisms by which a filter can stop particles from getting through. Only one of them depends on the gaps being smaller than the particles. Briefly, 1. Big particles don't fit between the fibers of the filter. Think fish in a fish net. This is called sieving. 2. Particles too small for sieving but heavier than the surrounding flow don't make the turns as well as the surrounding flow when the flow goes around the fibers. The particles can get embedded in the fibers. This mechanism is called inertial impaction. 3. The smallest might be too small to actually be affected much by the flow of the surrounding fluid through the filter. The move by diffusion, and many will randomly hit the fibers and get stuck. 4. Particles too big for diffusion but too light for inertial impaction still can run into fibers and get stuck. This is called interception. 5. Some filters have an electrostatic charge which can help trap particles. The effectiveness of sieving, inertial impaction, and interception all follow S shaped curves that start out low for small particles, then at some point start rising, and then level out. The sieving curve's rise is almost vertical. The rise for inertial impaction is steep but not nearly as steep as it is for sieving. The curve for interception's rise is much more relaxed. The effectiveness for diffusion goes the other way. Much more effective for very small particles, then above some size drops down and is low from then one. When you put all these together, you get a curve that is effective at the small end, and at some point as size goes up effectiveness drops, reaching a minimum, and then rises again to reach high effectiveness for particles above some certain size. More detail here [1]. [1] http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.com/library/files/documents/pdfs/042665.pdf http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.com/library/files/document...
- cvwright 5y ago
  From "Follow the science" to "Who cares if it works or not?" in 17 short months...
- kube-system 5y ago
  Rand knows this 100%, and I find it pretty fascinating from a creative perspective to watch him speak on these topics. He's a senator and an MD. He is well aware of how infection control works, but he also knows that his ultimate job as a politician is to make arguments that will resonate with his constituents. He knows exactly what landmines to throw into a sentence to make it mean one thing to an expert, but sound like the opposite when it's on the news. This is why he gets under the skin of people like Fauci so bad.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    > he also knows that his ultimate job as a politician is to make arguments that will resonate with his constituents Wider context check, his job as a politician is to serve his constituents by leading, even when it may be difficult. Pandering to the lazy and ignorant in a state of perpetual campaigning is an utter dereliction of duty.
    - ReadEvalPost 5y ago
      As of May 2021 vaccine hesitancy by % of group is highest among PhDs: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v... Funny how one's enemies are always the lazy ignorant ones.
      - mindslight 5y ago
        Wearing a mask is inconvenient and much of the resistance is just people being lazy and then rationalizing it. Furthermore, people who go for the same old talking points without acknowledging counterarguments are by definition ignorant. I'm no fan of the democrats either, and I'd say there is a lot of lazy/ignorant campaigning on their part as well. But on this topic at least the democrats acknowledged the pandemic and aimed for some type of response. There are actually conservative approaches to many of the problems facing our society. But rather than adopting those positions and making public debate be about the merits of conservative/progressive approaches, the republican party has chosen a path of simply denying that the problems exist at all. This cannot stand.
- chlodwig 5y ago
  Is it disinformation to say "the rythmn method is not an effective form of birth control"? Or is it disinformation to say, "the rythmn method is an effective form of birth control"?
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Context and intent is important. The CDC describes that method as "Least Effective". https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/contraceptive_methods_508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/p... If we had no other method, then it might be reasonable to call it effective, in comparison to doing nothing. Given that better options exist, it is not very reasonable to call it effective without qualification. If someone chooses to intentionally reduce a conversation to an "effective/ineffective" dichotomy to deliberately mislead or obscure conversations, then it might be disinformation. Disinformation can consist entirely of factual statements.
    - chlodwig 5y ago
      If someone chooses to intentionally reduce a conversation to an "effective/ineffective" dichotomy to deliberately mislead or obscure conversations, then it might be disinformation. Disinformation can consist entirely of factual statements. Actually, a good case for banning ALL discussion of mask effectiveness on Twitter as being disinformation, since the character limit basically forces turning discussion into simplified dichotomy.
      - kube-system 5y ago
        "deliberately" is the key word. Brevity for the sake of expeditiousness or practicality is different than brevity for the sake of deception or ulterior motive.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
- roenxi 5y ago
  I'm not sure this tack is sufficient to defend YouTube's policy. This is quite close to arguing that a sitting senator shouldn't have opinions on what government policy is meant to be achieving. Rand Paul is (1) elected (2) holds a medical license. YouTube is suspending him because (1) he is disagreeing with government policy and (2) they don't like his medical opinion. I think it is fair to say you are defending (1) here? He is far more qualified to decide what the public discourse is than you, I and YouTube's censorship team.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    Not objecting to or defending the policy, just pointing out that Rounding 99% down to “doesn’t work” is a common disinformation tactic to be aware of when you hear it.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    YouTube doesn't have any responsibility (especially legal) to the public discourse. It's weird that people have decided that privately owned companies should be required to do things they don't want to do, in the name of freedom.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      > YouTube doesn't have any responsibility (especially legal) to the public discourse. Of course it does, should the government decide it does. Just like how the Civil Rights acts mandated that certain private businesses have responsibilities to serve certain classes of citizens equally. Just like the federal housing law requires landlords, corporate or not, to rent out to all people. The government is allowed to mandate whatever it wants to benefit the public (the source of its power) so long as such a mandate is not prevented by a higher law. The courts have found that these laws are constitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v... > countered that the restrictions requiring adequate accommodation for African Americans were unquestionably related to interstate travel and that Congress, under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, certainly had the power to address such a matter in law. Apparently, all the US government would need to do is argue that YouTube, as a multi-state corporation, is subject to interstate commerce regulations, which is very precedented.
- rayiner 5y ago
  That’s not “misinformation.” It’s a perfectly legitimate argument against ineffective government mandates. In a cost-benefit balancing framework, it points out that the benefits will be much less than expected.
  - zR0x 5y ago
    What’s legitimate is subjective. Rand Paul is too much of a troll to be given legitimacy
  - cogman10 5y ago
    > 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 political issue. The countries that faired the worst all turned COVID into a game of the left vs right. You can't say masking and social distancing don't work or are ineffective when 40% of the population goes out of it's way to not wear masks, wear them under their nose, and decides to hold big rallies and gathering to celebrate how much they hate wearing masks.
    - cvwright 5y ago
      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?
      - cogman10 5y ago
        Just because a state is red or blue, does not mean that everyone in that state is a democrat or republican. It's not binary. And, in particular, with infectious disease a few bad apples spoil the bunch. Can you tell us why the current delta deaths are pretty much entirely the unvaccinated? Care to take a stab at what the #1 predictor of vaccine status is? [1] Also, maybe a shocker to you, but densely populated states (such as NJ, NY, and MA) tend to do poorly when a communicable disease hits. It spreads fast and the hospitals are overwhelmed. [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250123 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- Natsu 5y ago
  I hate the word "dog whistle" because they let people sub in what they think the person said for what they actually said. I have seen otherwise intelligent people who could not even come up with a convincing straw man of what the other side believes for longstanding debates like abortion due to their bubbles. > Some people have gotten pregnant while on birth control, therefore birth control "doesn't work". Some people wearing seat belts still die in car crashes, therefore seat belts "don't work". This is a tried and true misinformation tactic. Now look at this from the other perspective: You have an angry person from the other side of the political spectrum insisting to them that their eyes are lying to them and that their opinions should be censored. Would this be effective persuasion to you? That's why I say the answer is to add context. To explain how things work and how we know things. There's a great comment on this very thread about the various mechanisms by which masks capture particles for one example. Or with vaccines, it's not "works vs. doesn't" but that it works X% of the time in preventing infection, reduces the period for which you're infectious by Y, and decreases the chance of serious infection by Z%. We should be making the case that going from unvaccinated to vaccinated reduces your odds of something bad happening from 2% to 0.0002%. You will note that this doesn't deny their observations, it explains them and recontextualizes them. This is also part of how I filter opinions on topics, those who can't explain the hows and the whys do not have any useful information to offer and can be ignored.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    The term dog whistle is regularly used as a covert form of Ad Hominem that I find logically annoying, basically "ignore everything this person said because" insert assumption of what was meant and derogatory term about political affiliation. We see this lots in our media and it seems they are trying to do our thinking for us, rather than letting us draw our own conclusions. Face to Face, and in the past, we were much more civil to one another.
    - TMWNN 5y ago
      >The term dog whistle is regularly used as a covert form of Ad Hominem that I find logically annoying, basically "ignore everything this person said because" insert assumption of what was meant and derogatory term about political affiliation. Agreed. "Dog whistle" basically means "I can't find something to attack in what ideological opponent said, so I'm going to pretend that what he said actually means something else, and attack that instead".
xanaxagoras 5y ago
> If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough" he could have said that. He could have, but he didn't. You're not his editor. > But he's a senator. He's also a physician. He might know something about infectious diseases that you don't. > His statement was a dog whistle to his base. Maybe it was. So what? > They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking. It's his prerogative to take whatever position he wants to take. He's a physician and an elected member of the United States Senate. I for one want to hear his expertise, even if it disagrees with the conclusions you've already made.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Fortunately, you can. He's provided a list of alternate locations for his video. They just aren't YouTube.
- patmcc 5y ago
  >>I for one want to hear his expertise, even if it disagrees with the conclusions you've already made. That's fine. YouTube doesn't want to host it, because in their view it's harmful. What's the problem?
  - tomohawk 5y ago
    Youtube is a monopoly. Monopolies must not be allowed to infringe on our rights.
  - tw600040 5y ago
    So if some restaurant business says X (gays, christians, asians etc) not welcome we don't want to host them, that's fine too?
    - smorgusofborg 5y ago
      The groups you cite are civil rights relevant. Do you think Rand Paul's thoughts are an expression of his religion or evidence of a handicap?
poopypoopington 5y ago
This, he doesn't care about the science or saving lives. He cares about maintaining and growing his power and he thinks the way to do that is with these sorts of dog whistles to his base.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  There are a set of politicians who believe that long term the best option for getting their preferred policies into law is by doing everything possible to get and keep their party in power. I assume they have the best of intentions, but the end result is that anything is permissable if they think it will lead to that outcome. I'm sure we can all (left or right) think of some who fit this description.
  - jimmygrapes 5y ago
    Yep: https://www.bamn.com/ https://www.bamn.com/
rayiner 5y ago
They want to discredit mask mandates. Pointing out that they won’t work in practice, because people will mostly use these cloth masks that work poorly, is a perfectly legitimate basis for discrediting mask mandates that is also based on the science. It’s like pointing out that an assault weapons ban won’t meaningfully reduce homicides because the vast majority of homicides are committed using handguns. That’s a perfectly legitimate argument.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Have you watched the video? He's not making a nuanced argument about mask mandates being undermined by people using ineffective masks.
- reubens 5y ago
  The quote mentioned that store-bought masks don't prevent infection. He didn't say that they work poorly. The recommendations suggest that having any mask is better than having no mask.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    Whether there is any difference between those two assertions depends strongly on your implicit cost-benefit outlook. Liberals typically subscribe to a “any measure even one with a small benefit is worth it.” Conservatives usually feel the opposite.
    - throwaway5752 5y ago
      That is false. He is not arguing, "they don't provide enough benefit to justify inconveniencing people". He is saying they are ineffective, which is an intentional sleight of hand argument that focuses not being effective in blocking the virus from being inhaled while ignoring that they are effective at reducing the velocity of airborne particules when exhaled and distance at which the virus can be transmitted to others. Which, on the aggregate, is effective. It is grossly dishonest and as a surgeon, he knows this. It's filthy, disgusting political strategy that is killing people to try work a wedge issue for '22. https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-rand-paul-introduces-legislation-repeal-mask-mandates-public-transportation-%C2%A0 https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-rand-paul-introduces-leg... is further proof that he is not entering the public debate in good faith and in service of public health. We have not reached herd immunity, and had not at the time he introduced this. As a member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pension as well as Homeland Security and Government Affairs, there is no doubt he had access to to better data on this than the general public. I would love for him to say "I am a conservative and I'd rather some people die than to even allow the mildest mask laws" so we could have an honest debate. He wants to frame this as an individual freedom question, and wants to deny the deaths/illness that are the consequence because it harms his rhetorical position - or really, his future career in politics. That might raise the idea of an individual's right to not get sick and die as a result of someone else's decisions. We do not allow people to drive intoxicated in the US for this reason, as well as a host of other regulations.
whiddershins 5y ago
This whole dog whistle thing is just a way to put whatever interpretation on someone's words you feel like.
- hobs 5y ago
  No, it was literally a strategy explicitly used and still used by political operatives to say what they want to say without constraint, and have people defend their bullshit language. "In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing former president Richard Nixon's Southern strategy, speculated that terms like "states' rights" were used for dog-whistling:[27][28][29] You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes. And all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[30]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)
- kube-system 5y ago
  Well, that’s the entire point of a dog whistle. They’re intentionally vague enough to encourage listeners to draw their own conclusions. They’re not hard to identify if you understand the viewpoints of the listeners or even just observe their reactions. If two groups like a statement, but they both thought it meant a different thing, that’s probably a dog whistle. Take for instance: “Vote for kube-system, he’s one of us. He thinks congress should do what’s right for Americans and their families; end the dishonesty in Washington, and protect the rights and values you deserve.” What demographic am I talking to? Who are the dishonest politicians? What rights and values? Could be anyone!
  - whiddershins 5y ago
vimy 5y ago
I find mentioning dog whistles as an argument to discredit someone unconvincing. It’s a way to twist someone's words to whatever you want. Dog whistle = Someone said something but since I can read minds I know he/she meant something else.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Yes, in times like this, other's apparent power to read minds is simply amazing. What I would give to have such ability!
syshum 5y ago
I am pretty sure a large number of people on "your side" (for the record I am on Rand's side on this) want to prevent it We have evidence of this First you said "2 weeks to flatten the curve" we did that, and flattened the curve hospitals were saved ... but you were not appeased then you said "a few months to reduce the deaths" we did that and death rate dropped... but you were not appeased Then you said "a few more months to reduce the infection rates" we did that and the infection rate dropped ...but you were not appeased Then you said "a few MORE months to the vaccine" we did that and got the jab ...but you were not appeased We have now come the conclusion that you will accept nothing less than a complete eradication of COVID which by all expert account is impossible. I am unwilling to cede anymore of my freedom to your demands.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- robotresearcher 5y ago
  > we did that and got the jab ...but you were not appeased No, not enough of us did that. For measles and polio we did. No one is asking you to wear a measles mask, and measles is very contagious.
  - syshum 5y ago
    Thanks for admitting that you are treating this like Polio, and not like the Flu... Treating COVID like polio is foolish, and naive. All indications are COVID will be an annual thing like the flu, chances are mutations will be more transmissible but less deadly (and the data is bearing this out) Chances are we will need annual "booster" or other vaccine just like the flu... We do not mandate people get the annual flu shot, nor should we mandate people get the COVID vaccine. So the question is do you support mask mandates, lock down, and economic destruction for the annual flu? I do not.
    - robotresearcher 5y ago
      The question is how to get the fraction of people vaccinated high enough, so that costly mask+behavior mandates are obviated. Mask wearing and behavior changes last year were massively effective against flu, by accident. Flu is usually much less deadly than COVID. That factor matters in how we treat it. (edit: added data) The 2017-2018 flu season was an historically bad one in the US, resulting in an estimated 30,453 hospitalizations the whole season. The 7 day moving average for new COVID hospital admissions is 89,977 today, and peaked at about 260K in a single week in January.
csomar 5y ago
Are surgical/N95 masks used correctly, though? Most people do not seem to be aware that 1. they last a few hours, 2. you shouldn't remove/touch/wear them again and 3. they are not re-usable. Masks are great if used correctly, otherwise they are massive vector of the virus and everyone is taking it with them.
- slownews45 5y ago
  The idea that my N95 doesn't work after a few hours is ridiculous. If you do wood working you know this. Even a few hour hold mask makes an AMAZING difference. I've seen doctors wear masks for full 12 hours shifts.
boredumb 5y ago
The only things that hear dog whistles are dogs.

lamontcg 5y ago

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 different arguments about the efficacy of masks.

xienze 5y ago
> 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?
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Another poster explained this. The physics around this is not as simple as you might expect.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  Droplets

raxxorrax 5y ago

In practice people still use cloth masks and nobody checks this. Doesn't excuse the censorship at all.