CCCmonster t1_jaehhtb wrote on February 28, 2023 at 9:17 PM

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

Jumping to conclusions a bit? I’m not claiming conspiracy. Just that there was a whole lot of unsettled science - and science - can always be reasonably examined. The shut down of reasoned debate is always troubling

platoprime t1_jaemgix wrote on February 28, 2023 at 9:49 PM

You're not making an argument though. If you'd like to debate you need to be saying something beyond "Waaah there's no debate going on! Waaaah"

ReaperX24 t1_jaes29c wrote on February 28, 2023 at 10:27 PM

I indeed did jump to conclusions and may have ended up misconstruing you, as a result. I did say that it was a guess, though.

If that is the case, feel free to clarify your side of the argument.

CCCmonster t1_jaett8g wrote on February 28, 2023 at 10:39 PM

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 on February 28, 2023 at 10:52 PM

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 on February 28, 2023 at 11:00 PM

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.