Let free speech, data, dialogue settle the approximation of Truth, let not Truth be decreed by Bureaucracy.
Perhaps we can evaluate what went wrong so the next time we have a better outcome.
Of course the next time will be slightly different and the science will change. “Best practices “ are what we start with.
Personally, I find debating on the Internet isn’t very productive.
For example, everyone at the beginning who said “most people survive Covid” were right. These people were were fine with a million deaths from the beginning
If anything, there needs to be stronger consequences for subverting public health best practices in the face of a pandemic that killed a million American and tens of millions globally. Your personal doubts about science are squat by comparison. Get someone with grants and a lab to take your side. All the antivaxxers have are some quacks and fakers in lab coats. Crushing them is a good thing. It saves lives.
Internet rando and wannabe autodidact here. This comment seems to be written from the perspective of someone who believes that they can determine what is Truth and what isn't (otherwise, how would you come to that conclusion in the first place?). Any tips on how to get there?
That perspective combined with sentiments like "Crushing them is a good thing" sounds like a ... potent mix. How many people do you find admirable that project that sort of vibe?
