Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by xanaxagoras | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

xanaxagoras

> 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.

View on HN

> He could have, but he didn't. You're not his editor.

You're right, in a separate video [1] he said "We will not wear masks!". He isn't saying "cloth masks suck, I'd be ok if we did better masks" He's saying "cloth masks suck, we should not wear any masks". Directly. No editorializing needed.

> He's also a physician. He might know something about infectious diseases that you don't.

Dr Oz is also a physician. He constantly tells people to buy dumb shit like green coffee to cure cancer.

The fact of the matter is, Paul was an Ophthalmologist. Do you take infectious disease advice from your dentist? The fact that he can say he's a medical doctor is true, but his field is completely unrelated to the field of infectious disease.

The actual experts in the field are telling us to social distance and wear masks. Paul is telling people to rise up, take off their masks, and ignore these plain sense precautions [1].

> I for one want to hear his expertise, even if it disagrees with the conclusions you've already made.

Hear what he has to say, but frankly, he's as big a hack as Dr Oz.

[1] https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1424399282447298563

Edit: Phil->Oz

Dr. Phil (McGraw) isn't a physician. He was a psychologist.

I'm thinking Dr Oz. I get my bullshit daytime tv doctors mixed up.

Dr. Phil isn't a doctor. He has a Ph.D. He had a license to practice psychology in Texas that he voluntarily surrendered because of some complaint or something, I'm not going to read the details. Jill Biden isn't a doctor either. Neither is Julius "Dr. J" Erving. People can call themselves doctors without being doctors. Rand Paul is a doctor.

> He's a physician and an elected member of the United States Senate.

He's non-practicing physician, but a practicing legislator. His job is to legislate, which includes determining the budget and operating model for the CDC.

Why does a legislator feel the need to circumvent his duty regardless of his prior private area of expertise? If he truly has physician expertise that is somehow superior to that of the CDC why isn't he working to convince his legislator colleagues to direct the budget and operating model of the CDC, as opposed to trying to circumvent due process and rile up his base.

I think you know the reason why.

>>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?

Youtube is a monopoly. Monopolies must not be allowed to infringe on our rights.

So if some restaurant business says X (gays, christians, asians etc) not welcome we don't want to host them, that's fine too?

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?

> Do you think Rand Paul's thoughts are...evidence of a handicap?

They could be. Or do you just mean physical handicaps?

Mask opinions are not a protected class

Yes, if you're actually a libertarian -- like Rand Paul claims to be -- that is in fact fine. People can vote with their feet.

edit: typo

We make a distinction between characteristics/traits and actions, generally. It's generally wrong to discriminate based on traits and fine to discriminate on actions.

So; if YouTube said "we don't allow Christian white men" or whatever, absolutely, that's terrible and shouldn't be allowed. If they say "we don't allow people to say things that are actively harmful" that's quite different.

If you go into a restaurant and insult the servers, or start bothering other patrons, they'll ask you to leave. That's perfectly fine.

How about if a man and woman kiss and are left alone but when two men kiss they are asked to leave for public indecency?

"Kissing" is the behavior, it should either be allowed or not. It's clearly wrong to have different rules depending on the gender of those involved.

This just seems very dismissive. Maybe you're right that Youtube's speech policies aren't an issue of earth-shattering importance, but that wouldn't mean it's somehow impossible to say that I don't like them and wish they would change.

Partially I'm serious, but I'm also channeling the politics of Rand Paul - a libertarian who doesn't believe in "rights based on your behavior" - which to him I suppose means the "behavior" of being gay or trans, rather than the behavior of saying idiotic things about covid.

> That's fine. YouTube doesn't want to host it, because in their view it's harmful. What's the problem?

It is perfectly rationale to say that YouTube has the freedom to make editorial choices while also pointing out that they are making bad choices.

You aren't countering any criticism by stating that YouTube has the freedom to make those choices -- you're just changing the topic and ignoring the nature of the criticism.

Because the criticism is bollocks. "I want to hear particular views on a particular website" isn't an argument.

Yeah, except that isn't actually the argument.

So what? It impugnes his motives 100% and it impugnes your motives as well to say "so what" to the clear implication made, that he wants no masking at all and would like the most negative outcome, increasing mass death.

Saying "oh but he's a physician so him encouraging mass death is an interesting opinion I want to hear" sounds... a bit nutty dont you think?

I'm done with COVID. I'm immune to it. By this point everyone has had the chance to become immune to it. I'm not worried about the delta variant. I don't think mass death is on the table here.

No your not, re infection is happening. At our current rate maybe we'll reach immunity about the time Zeta rolls around.

Well, that's how I'm thinking about it and that's how I'm acting. I'd rather die from a severe breakthrough case than go through another last year.

Tell me more about his career as a physician specializing in infectious disease.

Sure. As an ophthalmologist certified both by the American Board of Ophthalmologists and the National Board of Ophthalmologists, Rand Paul is both an expert in general medicine as well as ophthalmology. Given that it's fairly safe to assume that he knows more about practicing medicine than either one of us, is better prepared to read and understand medical research better than either of us, but most importantly, that he knows a lot more about medicine than most of the rest of our elected officials. Hence, if he has a disagreement with an overtly politicized CDC, he is uniquely qualified to speak on it as a senator to the American people.

> National Board of Ophthalmologists,

which Rand Paul personally invented, and he wrote the cerificarion exam that he took.

Right. He was originally certified by the ABO which speaks to his eminent qualifications as an ophthalmologist and as a doctor. He had a disagreement with them regarding some rule so he created the NBO. I'm not sure why that would lessen anyone's confidence in him as a doctor. To me it makes him a badass who is willing to roll up his sleeves and do hard, boring, administrative work to create a new institution that is more in line with his principles. I have a lot of respect for that, but even if you don't, it doesn't revoke his ABO certification.

> Given that it's fairly safe to assume that he knows more about practicing medicine than either one of us, is better prepared to read and understand medical research better than either of us, but most importantly, that he knows a lot more about medicine than most of the rest of our elected officials. Hence, if he has a disagreement with an overtly politicized CDC, he is uniquely qualified to speak on it as a senator to the American people.

Senator John Barrasso has a medical degree from Georgetown and a medical residency at Yale. He advocates for wearing masks.

Is he not uniquely positioned to tell Americans what to do?

> He could have, but he didn't.

That is exactly what I am saying. He knows quite well that N95s are effective, for instance. But that is not the context in which he frames the argument, intentionally.

I addressed much of this in a sibling comment below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28144209

TL;DR: Rand knows what he is doing. He’s not dumb, he knows his base, and he’s simply playing politics.

Fortunately, you can. He's provided a list of alternate locations for his video. They just aren't YouTube.

>> His statement was a dog whistle to his base. > Maybe it was. So what?

It means he is being intellectually dishonest. He has a long history of such behavior, and worse, he should know better.

You have assumed negative intent and damned it in the same sentence. You should conclude by agreeing with and patting yourself on the head.

Know who knows FAR more about infectious diseases than Rand Paul, a guy who didn't even get a bachelor's degree?

Infectious disease specialists. We already know what they have to say about masks.

Asking Rand Paul for his knowledge on infectious diseases and how they spread is akin to asking a random computer science graduate to tell you how to fix your Windows domain.

He may not have a bachelor's but he does have an MD, which is a higher degree and one that confers some expertise on medical matters last time I checked.

> asking a random computer science graduate to tell you how to fix your Windows domain

A random computer science graduate who does a bit of research should be able to tell you everything you need to know about your Windows domain. Certainly, they'd be better suited than asking an accountant.

An MD is a generalist's degree. It doesn't confer anything but that he graduated from med school and knows a bit about human physiology. Infectious diseases are AT LEAST as far out of his wheelhouse as Windows domain servers are to computer science graduates, aka, anything that he even pretends to know about the subject is something he read online.

Do you think a computer science graduate cannot be an expert at Windows domain management as well?

Do YOU think that a CS grad can call upon his CS background and magically be an expert on Windows domain management on par with people who do it for a living? Because THAT is what we are talking about here.

Rand Paul is an eye doctor, not an infectious disease specialist, and not an epidemiologist. The experts on this topic have spoken AND written AND researched the subject. Any credible information about it would have come FROM them, and THEY say that masks are something that we should do to stop the spread of an infectious disease.

He is an opthalmologist not an optometrist. A md degree gives you the ability to practice medicine. Paul will have been trained on the whole body. The eye speciality is an added specialization. As an MD he should be able to do everything from basic first aid to general diagnosis to delivering a baby in a woman even with major complications should he have to. He may have to do some research and reading but he is authorized to do such things

That's like pretending that the lead developer on MS Word and John Carmack are equally qualified and capable to speak on 3d graphics algorithm optimizations because they both know computer things. The best Paul can hope to do is to read the results research that these experts ACTUALLY PERFORMED.

He's not on their level and his opinion on the matter has zero importance other than his vote in the Senate.

If the lead MS word developer listens to Carmack's thoughts and points out problems, he's more than qualified.

"listens to Carmack's thoughts"

Because hearing a high level overview is anything even remotely like having foundational knowledge, much less a deep expertise.

I said equally qualified. You don't get to have the argument you want by disregarding the core of it simply because it disagrees with your politics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com