2 imp points here.
1) Policies seem to have no targeted application or risk analysis.
2) Health/media establishment keeps getting things wrong, but much worse is insistence that their claims could not be debated (even when likely wrong) and contrary opinions should be banned.
1) Policies seem to have no targeted application or risk analysis.
2) Health/media establishment keeps getting things wrong, but much worse is insistence that their claims could not be debated (even when likely wrong) and contrary opinions should be banned.
https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/1489831642810122241
A lot of the anti-vax misinformation/views have gained credibility specifically because of 2.
When I point out some anti-vax claim is contradicted by data, most common response is about how same people banned debate on lab leak, masks, opening schools etc. and were wrong.
When I point out some anti-vax claim is contradicted by data, most common response is about how same people banned debate on lab leak, masks, opening schools etc. and were wrong.
My response is that those attempts to censor don't make the contrarian opposition right either, but seeing correct/justifiable opinions be banned/dismissed has made people less willing to just trust mainstream sources and more willing to accept to accept contrarian takes.
If you were able to conduct an honest poll of unvaccinated, I strongly suspect that far more would say they are motivated by mistrust of the health/media establishment selling the vaccines than misinformation they got from any podcast or anti-vax source.
Banning Joe Rogan or even those driving anti-vax stuff (Berenson/McCullough/RFK* jr. etc.) won't solve that problem. Their popularity is just a symptom of the mistrust that mainstream sources created.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
