The actual science on the effectiveness of masks is mixed. While they can reduce the risks of viral transmission in certain limited circumstances there's no scientific consensus on masks as a widespread public health measure. If anyone believes the science is settled then please read this article.<p><a href="https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/93803" rel="nofollow">https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/93803</a><p>While Google (YouTube) is a private company and can censor whatever they want for any reason (or no reason at all) it is highly concerning that their near monopoly status gives them the power to shut down public debate. Even if you think Sen. Paul is wrong on this particular issue, how will you feel when YouTube decides to censor a political viewpoint that you support?
The video was censored because Paul states cloth masks are worse than N95 masks for infection. Which is scientifically accurate as far as I know.<p>So it's gotten a significant step worse. It has gone from "do not question the science" to simply "do not question".
Rand Paul is one of the staunchest libertarians in federal office. If there's any single deeply held belief that he has, it's that profit-seeking corporations should be able to do absolutely anything they want to anyone, and damn the consequences. So I don't feel bad that a corporation decided to do whatever they hell they wanted and suspended him. It feels a little like a "I didn't think the leopards would eat <i>my</i> face!" situation. This schadenfreude is independent of whether I actually agree with YouTube's choice in this particular video.
I don't know what clip they're referring to--this is exactly why this kind of censorship is a problem--but I let the Youtube algorithm do its thing the other day and it took me through several hours of various Rand Paul town halls, senate speeches, and other presentations. So I've seen a solid 4-5h of him talking on this topic. His actual views on this are far more nuanced and intelligent than the topic title suggests.<p>He's not against masking, he's against mask mandates. From what I understand, the efficacy of mask <i>mandates</i>, not masks themselves, is in fact scientifically disputed. If you think that's a logical contradiction; it's not. For example if people think that cloth masking is highly effective, when in fact it's only slightly effective, they may forgo actually effective solutions like vaccination.<p>---<p>Furthermore, society must balance measures to address Covid against other health-related and non-health-related concerns. Lockdowns slow the spread of infectious disease, but also cause death/suffering elsewhere through postponed surgeries, increased addiction/suicide, etc. We have to decide which risk to prioritize based on societal values. And by "we", I especially mean the senators/congressmen/ministers/etc to which we've delegated our political power. Therefore it's doubly stupid of Youtube to censor a current member of the Senate, of the very country Youtube is headquartered in, when he's acting in official capacity, giving an interview on a cable TV news channel. Just incredible.