- Reaction score
- 3,383
- Points
- 1,190
I'm not sure I agree.That was the problem. Anyone doing suppression isn't doing science; he's doing politics. Far-fetched ideas aren't ruled out of bounds; they just have the burden of proof.
It's easy to guess where the wheels come off. Authorities dealing with emergencies know their measures have to be followed; they fear that if they seem less than omniscient their measures might not be followed; they take the lazy way out to appear omniscient by suppressing discordant information. In the pandemic case, they compounded the error by clinging to the mantle of scientific method while not following it.
They should never have taken the lazy way out. The risk is that after the fact some of the discordant views will be seen to have been legitimate and correct, and some did end up in that set.
Less deaths, but more political and academic discord following.
Or
More deaths, but less political and academic discord following.
Which option is the more ethical/pragmatic choice?