3 ms·

> The WHO/CDC positions are consistent with the prevailing science. CDC: Masks should be worn by children aged 2 and up: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-n

> The WHO/CDC positions are consistent with the prevailing science. CDC: Masks should be worn by children aged 2 and up: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-guidance.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-... WHO: In general, children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-children-and-masks-related-to-covid-19 https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-children-and-ma... ECDC: In primary schools, the use of face masks is recommended for teachers and other adults when physical distancing cannot be guaranteed, but it is not recommended for students: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/questions-answers/questions-answers-school-transmission https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/questions-answers/que... Doesn't seem very consistent to me.

jollybean 5y ago
You're having difficulty with reading comprehension it seems, as that is not the manner in which I applied the term 'consistent'. WHO and CDC act in generally accordance with what we know i.e. 'consistent with the science'. The science itself is of course fuzzy, moreover, your example ignores the fact that in different conditions (i.e. cultures, relative access to healthcare, % vaccinated), public policy is going to be different even if the science itself were clear. So in varying conditions, it's reasonable that there's going to be varying policy implementations. Those implementations are not 'inconsistent' with the science, even if they are 'inconsistent' with one another. This is not hard to understand, so it begs the question, what kind of person would make the conclusion: "Different places have different public health policies, therefore these groups must be acting unscientifically" We generally know what's going on, and have a good idea of what we don't know - so most of this inanity boils down to psychology, self awareness, antagonism, magical thinking etc.. The answer to our problems lies more in understanding why people believe 'QAnon' conspiracy theories than it does anything else.
- henrikschroder 5y ago
  > So in varying conditions, it's not unreasonable that there's going to be varying policy implementation which are not 'inconsistent' with the science, even if they are 'inconsistent' with one another. Sure, but what we're discussing here is YouTube's single global standard that is being used to determine whether or not something is "misinformation" and should be prohibited on their platform. You argued that what YouTube is doing is good, because they're following CDC and WHO guidelines. I gave you one example of where the WHO and the CDC and the ECDC are completely at odds with each other, so what should YouTube do in that case? Which science should they follow? If I make a video on YouTube, talking about what a barbaric practice it is to force small children to wear masks, pointing out all the ways it is harmful for them, and talking about how little is gained from it, it would be seen as completely normal by most European viewers, because it is in line with public health recommendations from the ECDC. If I make a video on YouTube, talking about what a barbaric practice it is to re-open schools without mask mandates, pointing out the risk to teachers and staff, and talking about how much is gained from it, it would be seen as completely normal by many American viewers, because it is in line with public health recommendations from the CDC. Which video should be removed by YouTube for medical misinformation? The first? The second? Both? None? Or should YouTube apply different standards depending on your geolocation?

jollybean 5y ago

You're having difficulty with reading comprehension it seems, as that is not the manner in which I applied the term 'consistent'. WHO and CDC act in generally accordance with what we know i.e. 'consistent with the science'. The science itself is of course fuzzy, moreover, your example ignores the fact that in different conditions (i.e. cultures, relative access to healthcare, % vaccinated), public policy is going to be different even if the science itself were clear. So in varying conditions, it's reasonable that there's going to be varying policy implementations. Those implementations are not 'inconsistent' with the science, even if they are 'inconsistent' with one another. This is not hard to understand, so it begs the question, what kind of person would make the conclusion: "Different places have different public health policies, therefore these groups must be acting unscientifically" We generally know what's going on, and have a good idea of what we don't know - so most of this inanity boils down to psychology, self awareness, antagonism, magical thinking etc.. The answer to our problems lies more in understanding why people believe 'QAnon' conspiracy theories than it does anything else.

henrikschroder 5y ago
> So in varying conditions, it's not unreasonable that there's going to be varying policy implementation which are not 'inconsistent' with the science, even if they are 'inconsistent' with one another. Sure, but what we're discussing here is YouTube's single global standard that is being used to determine whether or not something is "misinformation" and should be prohibited on their platform. You argued that what YouTube is doing is good, because they're following CDC and WHO guidelines. I gave you one example of where the WHO and the CDC and the ECDC are completely at odds with each other, so what should YouTube do in that case? Which science should they follow? If I make a video on YouTube, talking about what a barbaric practice it is to force small children to wear masks, pointing out all the ways it is harmful for them, and talking about how little is gained from it, it would be seen as completely normal by most European viewers, because it is in line with public health recommendations from the ECDC. If I make a video on YouTube, talking about what a barbaric practice it is to re-open schools without mask mandates, pointing out the risk to teachers and staff, and talking about how much is gained from it, it would be seen as completely normal by many American viewers, because it is in line with public health recommendations from the CDC. Which video should be removed by YouTube for medical misinformation? The first? The second? Both? None? Or should YouTube apply different standards depending on your geolocation?