CCCmonster t1_jaett8g wrote
Reply to comment by ReaperX24 in From discs in the sky to faces in toast, learn to weigh evidence sceptically without becoming a closed-minded naysayer by ADefiniteDescription
My side is that anyone that questioning the government/media line was ridiculed instead of examining the facts. From calling lab leak hypothesis racist to labeling the questioning of mask usage as science heretics. One of the biggest was denying natural immunity as equal/superior to vaccination. I was vaccinated. But I value real science that allows discussion instead of some quasi religious following of kneejerk “science edicts” by people who won’t allow medical discussion/observations of people in the medical field. Whatever happened to - it’s ok to get a 2nd opinion?
ReaperX24 t1_jaevnwk wrote
I absolutely agree that many folks were far too militant about this, but to be fair, we were living through (and perhaps still are) a potential existential crisis, and most of the folks on the other side ranged from highly irresponsible to batshit insane.
In regards to the lab leak hypothesis, I'm no expert, but based on my personal research, it does seem to have way more merit than the mainstream opinion would lead you to believe, but at the time, investigating it wasn't as important as handling the crisis itself.
As for natural immunity, yes, it turned out to be more effective in most ways, but it obviously poses a much higher risk. Also, taking the vaccine in addition to natural immunity proved to be the best option, so it's a very poor excuse for rallying against the vaccine.
I agree with your overall point in regards to the value of free speech, but the devil is in the details.
CCCmonster t1_jaewv02 wrote
My point all along is discussion is important, especially with anything science based. The scientific method requires it. The specifics about Covid aren’t as important as the squashing of debate.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments