Isn't this how science works, you have new information and you use it to make a better decision.
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.
To be fair, Youtube shouldn't be the platform where doctors express their scientific opinion or try to win over support.
Having done it, I don’t necessarily love the process and would love for the process to be more open and accessible, but it generally works ok.
i am in no way against scientific material on yt but very much against a world in which a professionally edited and promoted youtube video is the minimal standard for scientific progress.
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?
The jury is a little out on the utility of allowing unpedigreed randos to pontificate on the nature of the science with the same amount of volume and podium-authority as qualified, practicing scientists with years of experience. Academia certainly doesn't consider them the same; we don't allow any random undergraduate to walk up to the podium and kick the lecturing professor off the stage so that they can have 5 minutes to explain how etheric currents are actually what makes lightning work.
We aren't, practically speaking, seeing a lot of evidence that the public can tell the difference right now. This is a problem.
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?
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.
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.
They intentionally engaged in a misinformation campaign. And now they are considered the authority against which any other opinion will be judged misinformation.
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.
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"
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.
That is something else than people saying now that there is no evidence that masks help, because now we have evidence.
Moderators watching videos is optional.
> In an interview on Fox News' "Fox & Friends" on Monday, Adams said wearing face masks could actually increase a person's risk of contracting the coronavirus.
> "You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider," Adams said. "Folks who don't know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus," he added.
> Adams' comments Monday reiterate his blaring tweet from the weekend, urging people to "STOP BUYING MASKS." He said that they were "NOT effective" to the general public and noted that the increased demand in masks puts medical professionals at risk.
> The World Health Organization joined TikTok last week to provide accurate information about COVID-19. In one of two videos posted, it explained most people should not wear masks and provided instructions for how to properly wear one.
https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-dont-need-masks-pe...
For example, take the South Korea section in this article about how Europe is failing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-54482905 It starts off by attributing their success to "mass testing and strict contact tracing". In reality, South Korea is testing at about a tenth the rate of a typical European country (10-20 thousand a day), doesn't routinely test people with mild potential symptoms, and has no way of reliably detecting cases that don't have links to ones they know about - which have been appearing in increasingly alarming numbers. Technically, "tests have always been easily available" as the article says, but they successfully discourage most people from getting one by charging for them under most circumstances. They don't even appear to be trying to improve this either; their testing capacity seems to be at the same level it was in like March.
As for the strict contact tracing, this sentence hides a multitude of things: "the majority of people have accepted it and prioritised controlling the pandemic over their own privacy". I'm sure the people who didn't have the entire internet speculating that they were cheating on their partner, and aren't being criminalized for refusing to out themselves as gay to their homophobic employer in a country with no legal protections, and don't oppose the government, have no problem with it. Something tells me that the BBC would be infinitely less willing to put a positive spin on screwing over a minority of people like that in the name of the greater good if the UK or US government did it though.
The article goes on to downplay the other restrictions. "When infections rise, stricter measures are put in place", the BBC says, but makes it sound a limited, mostly brief and long ago thing: "At one point there was a 21:00 curfew on restaurants in the capital, Seoul. But now, social distancing guidelines are back to their lowest level." In reality, they'd literally only just dropped social distancing meaures to that level and allowed bars in Seoul to reopen right before the article was published: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-southko... It's still too early to even see the effect of this on cases. That bar closure was also imposed only two weeks after the previous 9pm curfew and complete ban on indoor dining/drinking in Seoul establishments was lifted. If the UK did this, there'd be endless BBC headlines about U-turns, confusing, seemingly arbitrary measures, and speculation as to whether businesses would survive - not this kind of attempt to minimize the extent of the measures. Especially the part about night clubs reopening; South Korea has tried this at least twice and had to do almost immediate U-turns both times, and there's no reason to expect they can manage it now.
I suspect the BBC would also have plenty to say about (for example) the flu vaccine screw-up if it happened in the UK: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20201015001058 They've certainly put enough of a negative spin on the fact that the UK doesn't have enough flu vaccines immediately to deal with unprecidented demand and the implications for the fight against Covid-19, even though there's nothing the government could really do given the lead times. But because it happened in the supposedly more competent success story country, most people will never hear about it and the illusion that our government is just incompetent compared to them will remain unchallenged.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...
> The meta-analysis itself avoided drawing any conclusions at all, and would not even admit that N95 respirators worked.
I mean, either you believe the science or you don't. You don't get to complain that it didn't support your preconception.
> According to intention-to-treat, the studies unanimously found masks to be useless. But there were a lot of signs that intention-to-treat wasn’t the right choice here.
Not a great sign.
> In other words, respirators are better than masks are better than nothing. It would be wrong to genuinely conclude this, because it’s not statistically significant. But it would also be wrong to conclude the studies show masks don’t work, because they mostly show respirators don’t work, and we (hopefully) know they do.
He's a fucking idiot.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197121... (2016) on the role of (incidental) face coverings to prevent population-level disease at large gatherings.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190903134732.h... (2019) on the role of personal protective equipment on stopping contraction of respiratory disease (flu).
And to top it off: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 (2017) meta-analysis, including a controlled section on effectiveness on population face mask use to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV.
We had the evidence.
[0] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2020/06/17/fauci...
Because Asian countries were basing their advice on science and the US was basing the advice on what would poll well with Republican voters who believe individual freedom is more important than community welfare. The US absolutely did have access to all the science, and chose to (temporarily) ignore it in order to try to gain votes the presidential election.
If Asian countries had been going in to an election and courting votes from a strongly conservative base their advice would have been different.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/japan/
The science you are referring to is very weak. The only randomized trial on cloth masks was completed in 2015.
I was in favor of masks (might have helped since I lived in Asia previously), and debating people early on about the usage. I don't know about now, but there was a lack of published evidence on non n95 masks, and even the use of n95 masks were debatable because of fit tests.
As someone else pointed out, this is what Sweden says to this day.
"The scientific evidence around the effectiveness of face masks in combatting the spread of infection is weak, which is why different countries have arrived at different recommendations."
I doubt the Swedes are trying to sway the US election.
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency...
It was the WHO who repeatedly stated that healthy people shouldn't wear masks, or close borders for that matter, and most politicians across the world didn't question that. And why would they, it's the job of the WHO to understand the science for us.
(If anything, Trump was initially harder on COVID than most by pushing for travel restrictions. At that time it was the Democratic NYC establishment that put individual freedom over safety [1], the two positions only flipped later on.)
The initial response, especially by the WHO, was an absolutely disaster. Asian countries did better than the US and the West in general because they _didn't_ listen to the 'experts'.
[1] https://twitter.com/billdeblasio/status/1234648718714036229
Actually for the most part this isn't true, our government was also telling us to wear masks but because of our previous experience with SARS everyone wore them anyway. Now of course it is illegal not to wear one.
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.
Yes!
My point was more that there's limits to free speech when it's harmful as a response to someone who said that everything should always be allowed everywhere.
You can debate whether that should include Covid misinformation and to what extent, but I would say unsubstantiated claims like vaccines will make you infertile are harmful to public health and are definitely candidates.
You absolutely can both legally, and practically at least the first and probably the second. Heck, the former has been part of the main editorial content on some TV outlets, not just advertising.
That's not untested science like masks.
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".
So no, it wasn't "science", it was deliberately misleading public statements.
Now the damage is done, and more people distrust Science.
History has shown that blindly following uber global bodies like the WHO can have a massive negative outcomes even with best intentions.
When exactly did following the UN or any other body result in desaster?
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)
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.
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/twelv...
"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...
As a source for this they have this page with 37 different papers/studies: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utb...
So... the science depend a lot of who you ask and the context of the statement.
They will say wherever they have to say to maximize profits and reduce losses
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.
People who have admitted publicly to engaging in a misinformation campaign are now considered to be the authorities against which dissenting views will be judged misinformation.
I remember early on debating people whether masks worked and they pointed to the lack of scientific studies.