The reason I use my own norms is mainly that I need to have unique rules about what politics is in/out of bounds, and in practice I’ve yet to strike down a post that isn’t either obvious spam or way too political. Recent events likely moved me further towards free speech absolutism.
As for rapid testing, there’s a lot of argument over how accurate they are. At least some of their ‘inaccuracy’ is actually by design slash useful, coming back negative on the less infectious and thus potentially making the test more useful. There’s clearly arguments about the rate of meaningful false negatives, with advocates claiming the tests basically work when it counts and skeptics disagreeing with that. I’m convinced (1) that the bigger skeptics are wrong in practice (2) that the tests are highly useful at a population level to contain spread and (3) they’re not as reliable as you’d like them to be if you want to do bubble-style things the way you’d like.
The reason I use my own norms is mainly that I need to have unique rules about what politics is in/out of bounds, and in practice I’ve yet to strike down a post that isn’t either obvious spam or way too political. Recent events likely moved me further towards free speech absolutism.
As for rapid testing, there’s a lot of argument over how accurate they are. At least some of their ‘inaccuracy’ is actually by design slash useful, coming back negative on the less infectious and thus potentially making the test more useful. There’s clearly arguments about the rate of meaningful false negatives, with advocates claiming the tests basically work when it counts and skeptics disagreeing with that. I’m convinced (1) that the bigger skeptics are wrong in practice (2) that the tests are highly useful at a population level to contain spread and (3) they’re not as reliable as you’d like them to be if you want to do bubble-style things the way you’d like.
Thanks. : )