Hacker News Reader

Comment by gibba999 | Hacker News Reader

This seems exceptionally problematic.

I absolutely think everyone should use masks, but the science is clearly not in on the effectiveness of cloth masks. It's a valid area of discussion.

My own opinion is that everyone should use N95-equivalent masks, but others are entitled to their opinions too. We have democratic and civic processes to decide what should be mandated, what should be recommended, what should be discouraged, and what should be banned. Prerequisite to those is honest discussion.

What's more problematic is this doesn't even work. A good civic discussion convinces people. Simply shutting people up convinces no one.

View on HN

Sure, it's a valid area of discussion. There are valid ways to critique the effectiveness of masks. To say, however, that:

"Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. That's because the virus particles can go right through them. That's still true. They don't work, there's no value. ... There's no signs to say they're preventing disease."

Simply discards the science and overall consensus without addressing it. There simply is no consensus that cloth masks do not work, at all, to any degree. Sen. Paul presents this as fact. That's misinformation.

The original video is here: https://rumble.com/vkyc0u-dr.-paul-addresses-dr.-faucis-mish...

Science is a process, not a democracy. Overall consensus is irrelevant.

I know perfectly good scientists who believe cloth masks are useless. They're in the minority, and I disagree with them, but I can't classify reasonable opinions I disagree with a "misinformation."

I went against the scientific establishment early in the pandemic advocating for masks, when consensus was that they were useless. The evidence and confidence hasn't changed very much since then; the party line has. I'm glad for that change, but it'd be hypocritical of me to complain that I was censored then, and support censorship now.

I'm also glad for freedom-of-speech, and sad when it's taken away. I think it's okay to restrict freedom-of-speech when people lie -- and there's good precedent for that -- but not for differences of opinion, even (and especially) ones I disagree with.

IIRC, the early consensus wasn't that they were useless, it's that there was no RCT that said they were effective. That's a big difference. Our understanding now is different.

If this was Sen. Paul's only statement--that most masks are ineffective--that would have been a bigger judgement call.

Sen. Paul, however, continued by saying that not only is it a fact they are ineffective, but Dr. Fauci knows this and is thereby lying to the American people.

That's way out of bounds for scientific discourse, and even for differences of opinion in normal discourse.

I read the studies back in March 2020. There was pretty evidence from:

* Studies on the spread of flu virus

* Case studies of COVID in Asia.

We know a little more today, but not a lot more. We have replicated the flu results with COVID19.

I didn't hear anything in that interview which felt out-of-bounds for normal discourse. It certainly was a step higher than discourse I hear from liberals all the time in my community, and discourse I hear from other conservatives.

I disagreed with a lot of what he said, but it didn't deserve to be censored. It was intelligent, reasoned, and I just happen to have a different opinion.

He's not a scientist, he's a politician.

> Simply shutting people up convinces no one

I mean, effectively shutting up one side of a discussion will surely convince most people to agree with the side being heard.

This just isn't effective (yet?).

No. It doesn't.

We try this over and over. Racism is an even bigger example. You go from public views to closeted views. Closeted views are usually more harmful. I've been in openly racist environments and in ones with closet racism. Open racists are sometimes easy to ignore, often easy to circumvent, and in some cases, possible to convince. Closeted racists are much more subversive.

You can see the same effects in countries with totalitarian religious regimes, where the religion comes off behind closed doors.

People pretending to follow public health measures when they know they're being watched is a worst-case scenario -- at that point, you can't even do studies on what works.

It is not, it is creating platform echo chambers.

The video is not taken offline, it was just taken off YT. So you end up with silo's of information where different groups of people have a different reality, which IMO is even more dangerous than misinformation, because it makes it harder to see alternate opinions if all your info is silo'ed

> A good civic discussion convinces people.

Only when done in "good faith".

If someone wants to help stop this pandemic and was arguing that masks aren't effective in "good faith", then they have follow-on arguments that they will be making: "stay home", "don't attend gatherings", etc.

The absence of those follow-on arguments demonstrates that the arguments are not in "good faith".

I strongly against mask mandate.

The problem with N95 mask :

- communication barrier, it destroy ability to use facial expression to aid communication.

- uncomfortable

- inconvenience

- not free

- environmental waste

But if someone want to wear mask, I wouldn't stop you as long as you don't force it to other people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com