Official Thread: Coronavirus "COVID-19"

[shrike126]

Censorship has again gone too far.

Medical misinformation has gone much much farther.

[pax]

Medical misinformation has gone much much farther.

Like I said properly educated people can make up their minds in a debate. I prefer BMJ over the likes of Facebooks faceless censor squad's gatekeeping when it comes to information that warrants a debate.

[shrike126]

Like I said properly educated people can make up their minds in a debate.

Well sure. But even properly educated people shouldn't expected to have a background in medical research.

I prefer BMJ over the likes of Facebooks faceless censor squad's gatekeeping when it comes to information that warrants a debate.

If you're going to Facebook for your medical "debates" then you're already a part of the problem.

Just stay up-to-date with CDC guidance, and talk to your doctor about what makes the most sense for you as an individual. Anything else is playing with fire and how we stray into horse de-wormer territory.

[pax]

Im not. But like it or not a lot of people use those platforms. If facebook, youtube and other large platforms start to play the censorship game itll diminish the ability for many people to get informed. Facebook replacing BMJ articles with cat pictures wont serve the audience well I think. And if they can censor the BMJ who is it to say they wont censor the CDC at some point?

I also seriously doubt the average doctor has time to debate multiple points of interest on things like covid with their patients. Its why some doctors and scientists and their associations often create podcasts that are, yes, on major platforms.

[shrike126]

Im not. But like it or not a lot of people use those platforms. If facebook, youtube and other large platforms start to play the censorship game itll diminish the ability for many people to get informed. Facebook replacing BMJ articles with cat pictures wont serve the audience well I think. And if they can censor the BMJ who is it to say they wont censor the CDC at some point?

I also seriously doubt the average doctor has time to debate multiple points of interest on things like covid with their patients. Its why some doctors and scientists and their associations often create podcasts that are, yes, on major platforms.

Right now we have platforms like Spotify which are enabling morons to gather and listen to idiots like Joe Rogan instead of real doctors, or scientists, or actual qualified medical guidance. As we've seen over the past couple years, a lack of censorship for public health information during a pandemic has enabled an antivax movement to take hold, at least here in the United States, with the consequences overwhelming hospitals and ER rooms around the country.

I'd be fine with no "censorship" or restrictions on information sharing, so long as the algorithms used to promote content on these platforms is regulated and subject to oversight, and maybe we put warning labels on certain content like those Surgeon General warnings on cigarettes. "Warning: Taking medical advice from this asshole can lead to serious health consequences including, but not limited to, catching Covid-19, spreading Covid-19, severe respiratory health issues, death, and becoming a social media cancer."

[pax]

Well spotify did remove about 70 of Rogans podcasts but Rogan as a non expert is one thing the BMJ, like the Lancet, as a peer reviewed medical journal is another.

Using crude ai or some secret little club of journalists/activists to censor peer reviewed scientific/medical journals is beyond the pale.

[andino]

I think that the proper place for scientific debate is in peer reviewed research and to be quite frank, that doesn't happen on public forums like Facebook.

To actually think that places like Facebook, podcasts, youtube, etc... are legitimate areas that scientific discovery is actually being debated is, quite frankly, absurd. At best, it's people that have little to no knowledge of basic science playing a gotcha game for fake internet points.

Social media sites have almost zero functionality when it comes to scientific debate other than giving people that failed biology in 9th grade the ability to show off how dumb they actually are.

I also seriously doubt the average doctor has time to debate multiple points of interest on things like covid with their patients.

My wife is a pediatrician and answers multiple questions on covid on a daily basis. The main problem that she has is the disinformation from places like facebook, podcasts, youtube, etc... where people think that they are getting legitimate information but are being misled.

Also, if you are 'debating' your doctor then you need to find another doctor. You need to trust that your doctor has your best interests in mind. And to a certain extent, your doctor needs to trust you. If that relationship is broken, then it's best that one or the other needs to cut ties and move on.

[shrike126]

Well spotify did remove about 70 of Rogans podcasts but Rogan as a non expert is one thing the BMJ, like the Lancet, as a peer reviewed medical journal is another.

Using crude ai or some secret little club of journalists/activists to censor peer reviewed scientific/medical journals is beyond the pale.

Those podcasts were pulled because he was using the n-word a lot. Not because they had medical misinformation. I believe that's still on there, they just added a disclaimer. You know, like selling cigarettes with a warning label because they still want to sell you the **** that will kill you because it's profitable.

I think that the proper place for scientific debate is in peer reviewed research and to be quite frank, that doesn't happen on public forums like Facebook.

To actually think that places like Facebook, podcasts, youtube, etc... are legitimate areas that scientific discovery is actually being debated is, quite frankly, absurd. At best, it's people that have little to no knowledge of basic science playing a gotcha game for fake internet points.

Social media sites have almost zero functionality when it comes to scientific debate other than giving people that failed biology in 9th grade the ability to show off how dumb they actually are.



My wife is a pediatrician and answers multiple questions on covid on a daily basis. The main problem that she has is the disinformation from places like facebook, podcasts, youtube, etc... where people think that they are getting legitimate information but are being misled.

Also, if you are 'debating' your doctor then you need to find another doctor. You need to trust your doctor has your best interests in mind. And to a certain extent, your doctor needs to trust you. If that relationship is broken, then it's best that one or the other needs to cut ties and move on.

[pax]

I dont follow Rogan enough to know either way what was removed so far and if they let his ivermectin and anti vax podcasts stay on it just makes the censorship of BMJ even more egregious. One can put their head in the sand over this fact of large internet platforms but remains that too many are on them that should have accessible info from valid sources that shouldnt be so easily censored simply because the subject matter is potentially controversial. All the major science and medical journals have a range of social media and internet presence for a reason.

Its like saying dont watch fox watch pbs for your info. Mindless hopeful wishing. Might as well yell at a brickwall. If you care about reaching as wide an audience as you reasonably can you'll use large media platforms to do so and allow your info to be disseminated on them, as they pretty much all do already, and not restrict yourself needlessly.

[Trunks0]

If you run a platform, you should moderate it.

It's a tough line to ride. But its the line you have to ride if you run a platform. We have the same problem on Rage3D. You set rules and you do your best to ensure they are followed.

Spotify, should have curated his back catalogue before making it available. As plenty of it would have never met their own rule set. But Spotify, much like YouTube, Facebook and even PornHub are trying to run these services on a razors edge so they can make a much money with as little effort as possible.

And moderating content is time consuming, expensive and hard. So they try to automate and ignore the issues as much as possible. So they can just barely get away with it. *shrug* It's not surprising, it just mostly sucks lol

[pax]

To me its just about calling out the big platforms to do a better job. They have the money they can do it and they are sensitive to criticism when enough people speak out. I certainly wouldnt disagree with removing obvious mis informed anti vax material from someone's or some group's media outlet who isnt an expert but I wouldnt justify blanket censorship over it like we are seeing today.

[Trunks0]

People can be smart, but when a show like his helps spread the info and he does nothing to get at facts or reality... it gives legitimacy to things that shouldn't have any. He needs to do better on his show to prevent that and he's admitted that.

*late edit* Blanket bans are often favoured by larger platforms. Again for the same reason, they don't want to invest in the level of moderation it could take otherwise. And I get that when your dealing with a YouTube sized platform. But Spotify... I think they can do better.

[pax]

I think its risky in that it will spread to not just facebook or youtube but google and the internet at large someday. Id rather trust peoples ability to discern whats good info from bad if it avoids blanket censorship. Its relatively easy to focus on a few major sources who are bad without using ai to run around burning real info using simple keywords. You cant get it all obviously that way but small sources dont usually carry much weight that such as medical journals have by their own reputation.

I really dont think its necessary and its dangerous to develop this culture of censorship. Its become a sport in many circles.

[Greasy]

85% of the folks in this country get their "news" on social media or MSM. (fox/cnn). The days of facts based reporting are long gone it seems. It's all opinion these days.

It doesn't help that the folks telling everyone to stay home and mask up keep getting busted partying while doing neither.

[Trunks0]

I think its risky in that it will spread to not just facebook or youtube but google and the internet at large someday. Id rather trust peoples ability to discern whats good info from bad if it avoids blanket censorship. Its relatively easy to focus on a few major sources who are bad without using ai to run around burning real info using simple keywords. You cant get it all obviously that way but small sources dont usually carry much weight that such as medical journals have by their own reputation.

I really dont think its necessary and its dangerous to develop this culture of censorship. Its become a sport in many circles.

*Shrug* you never had any sort of right to say whatever you want on any of these platforms and you shouldn't. Places with no rules suck.

[SD-[Inc]]

I think its risky in that it will spread to not just facebook or youtube but google and the internet at large someday. Id rather trust peoples ability to discern whats good info from bad if it avoids blanket censorship. Its relatively easy to focus on a few major sources who are bad without using ai to run around burning real info using simple keywords. You cant get it all obviously that way but small sources dont usually carry much weight that such as medical journals have by their own reputation.

I really dont think its necessary and its dangerous to develop this culture of censorship. Its become a sport in many circles.

There used to be guidelines around content that supposedly represented facts. If you didn’t accurately present your “facts” you should be open to some legal jeopardy. If Facebook enabled rioters to organize and did nothing to stop it they should be held complicit in a criminal act. I am sure if I invited a bunch to my house to plan the insurrection I would be in jail now. Somehow we need to create accountability to the actions of bad actors in the system. There is too much garbage in the system for normal people to be able to filter out facts successfully. Trust is only attainable when someone is accountable to providing truth.

[pax]

No rules suck and so do any kind of rules to justify any and all censorship. I mean if no one, not even the most respected scientists or scientific outlets, has a right to speak on any medium that invites people to participate you in effect ruin what should be in some respects a public space or is sold as such. Facebook means your face, Youtube means you...

Rules should make sense. Incitement, intolerance ok. But just debating an issue thats not settled?

Whats the difference between an ai burning a huge thread on vaccines and some bozos burning books?

[pax]

There used to be guidelines around content that supposedly represented facts. If you didn’t accurately present your “facts” you should be open to some legal jeopardy. If Facebook enabled rioters to organize and did nothing to stop it they should be held complicit in a criminal act. I am sure if I invited a bunch to my house to plan the insurrection I would be in jail now. Somehow we need to create accountability to the actions of bad actors in the system. There is too much garbage in the system for normal people to be able to filter out facts successfully. Trust is only attainable when someone is accountable to providing truth.

My point is they arent doing that at Facebook. Buddy driving drunk down the road gets arrested by an ai and some neighbors get cited along with him because they were close to the scene... doesnt make sense. If they cant target properly they need to cut back and do less of something serious like censorship until such time as they can do it well.

No one claimed The BMJ had made false claims. Facebook typically doesnt answer to bad censorship, nor does youtube, it just goes about it with a meat cleaver cutting out anything it thinks isnt right without justification. And the culture at large is backing that due to becoming increasingly radicalized making public discourse increasingly impossible in large important forums.

I mean for example you cant argue and educate people in a forum like facebook on the merits of such things as vaccines if an ai makes it impossible to do so and easy censorship made available to malcontents who mean to prevent that discourse from even taking place.

Tho to be fair I find twitter is still pretty good. So far.

[Crawdaddy79]

Whats the difference between an ai burning a huge thread on vaccines and some bozos burning books?

I haven't heard this analogy before. I like it.

[Trunks0]

No rules suck and so do any kind of rules to justify any and all censorship. I mean if no one, not even the most respected scientists or scientific outlets, has a right to speak on any medium that invites people to participate you in effect ruin what should be in some respects a public space or is sold as such. Facebook means your face, Youtube means you...

Rules should make sense. Incitement, intolerance ok. But just debating an issue thats not settled?

It is settled. The debate for anti-vax is complete non-sense and it's dangerous to spread false information about it and BS alterantives. Why we don't allow it here at Rage3D anymore.

Whats the difference between an ai burning a huge thread on vaccines and some bozos burning books?

False equivalence. The AI is just deleting patterns according to a sites/apps rule set(good or bad, dumb or smart). An idiot doing a book burning has intention to his actions and is making a display of it.

My point is they arent doing that at Facebook. Buddy driving drunk down the road gets arrested by an ai and some neighbors get cited along with him because they were close to the scene... doesnt make sense. If they cant target properly they need to cut back and do less of something serious like censorship until such time as they can do it well.

No one claimed The BMJ had made false claims. Facebook typically doesnt answer to bad censorship, nor does youtube, it just goes about it with a meat cleaver cutting out anything it thinks isnt right without justification. And the culture at large is backing that due to becoming increasingly radicalized making public discourse increasingly impossible in large important forums.

I mean for example you cant argue and educate people in a forum like facebook on the merits of such things as vaccines if an ai makes it impossible to do so and easy censorship made available to malcontents who mean to prevent that discourse from even taking place.

Tho to be fair I find twitter is still pretty good. So far.

Yeah... I'm not big on how the automated systems work. I don't think the various AI's in use are really good enough. But again, these companies are trying to do this as cheaply as possible and people are not cheap. The mental stress and stuff you are exposed to can cause PTSD and other psychological issues.

Imho human moderation is by far an away the best. But at the scale of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube... it would not only be very expensive, but potentially impossible. Especially in the case of something like YouTube to try and have everything human moderated/approved.

[SD-[Inc]]

It is settled. The debate for anti-vax is complete non-sense and it's dangerous to spread false information about it and BS alterantives. Why we don't allow it here at Rage3D anymore.



False equivalence. The AI is just deleting patterns according to a sites/apps rule set(good or bad, dumb or smart). An idiot doing a book burning has intention to his actions and is making a display of it.



Yeah... I'm not big on how the automated systems work. I don't think the various AI's in use are really good enough. But again, these companies are trying to do this as cheaply as possible and people are not cheap. The mental stress and stuff you are exposed to can cause PTSD and other psychological issues.

Imho human moderation is by far an away the best. But at the scale of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube... it would not only be very expensive, but potentially impossible. Especially in the case of something like YouTube to try and have everything human moderated/approved.

If it’s impossible to moderate then maybe they have a bad product. If a bad product is used with criminal intent then shouldn’t there be some accountability? Facebook business model is the whole problem. It needs to die.

[Trunks0]

Yup. But hey, now that Facebook/Meta is about to loose it's entire European presence, they might have an easier job at attempting moderation

[pax]

It is settled. The debate for anti-vax is complete non-sense and it's dangerous to spread false information about it and BS alterantives. Why we don't allow it here at Rage3D anymore.



False equivalence. The AI is just deleting patterns according to a sites/apps rule set(good or bad, dumb or smart). An idiot doing a book burning has intention to his actions and is making a display of it.



Yeah... I'm not big on how the automated systems work. I don't think the various AI's in use are really good enough. But again, these companies are trying to do this as cheaply as possible and people are not cheap. The mental stress and stuff you are exposed to can cause PTSD and other psychological issues.

Imho human moderation is by far an away the best. But at the scale of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube... it would not only be very expensive, but potentially impossible. Especially in the case of something like YouTube to try and have everything human moderated/approved.

Not talking about anti vax not being settled. If in the mind of the anti vaxer its not settled he needs to be debated so as to change his mind. But in terms of many other things about covid19 many things arent settled so debate about it will be ongoing for years yet.

AI is the result of social pressure being brought to large platforms to censor ad hoc large amounts of information. So its semantics to say the garish book burning is worse.

Lots of books have horrible things in them but burning them isnt the solution.

[andino]

Id rather trust peoples ability to discern whats good info from bad if it avoids blanket censorship.

The problem is that people don't have that ability and pretty much never did.

We can attribute a lot of things to technology and social media sites but the truth is that misinformation has been around a very long time. Misinformation predates technology. Technology does make it easier to fool more people easier than before. But rest assured that people have been falling for misinformation since the dawn of humanity.

With great power comes great responsibility. Honestly, social media sites need this kind of content control. Especially the larger ones. They need to understand that the content on their sites does have an effect on their users. They have been pretty lax in this area for years. Now that people are dying because of their lax monitoring policies they are getting well deserved negative attention. They make billions of dollars off of other people's content. Even the misinformation. And while that might be acceptable during normal times it should not be acceptable when people are losing their lives. Social media platforms should be held to a MUCH higher standard. Their default answer is always they have very little control over what everyone posts. And that logic is a steaming pile of dung. They can somehow easily filter information for places like China yet disinformation and misinformation is a line that they are unwilling to cross? Doesn't make sence.

I guess this is where I differ. I'd rather have a ban on legit site and have a boatload of misinformation not come to light than have free range crazy with people dying from rampant misinformation any day of the week. I'd bet that if you asked that same question to the people at the British Medical Journal that they'd feel the same way in this day and age. Chances are that the ban on BMJ will be very temporary. This is more of an inconvenience to them. It's not a permanent thing like someone dying from legitimate misinformation. I would take that inconvenience if it meant that someone wouldn't die because of some moron posting misinformation. Pretty sure that they would too.

[pax]

If it’s impossible to moderate then maybe they have a bad product. If a bad product is used with criminal intent then shouldn’t there be some accountability? Facebook business model is the whole problem. It needs to die.

It is dying according to some. Some on the board are leaving meta like rats a sinking ship. But other social media platforms will replace it. And they will be large or numerous. If they cant fix their product to discriminate properly it should die asap.

[andino]

Not talking about anti vax not being settled. If in the mind of the anti vaxer its not settled he needs to be debated so as to change his mind.

Because the internet is where you go to change other people's minds.

But in terms of many other things about covid19 many things arent settled so debate about it will be ongoing for years yet.

Public opinion and facts aren't always the same thing.

AI is the result of social pressure being brought to large platforms to censor ad hoc large amounts of information. So its semantics to say the garish book burning is worse.

Lots of books have horrible things in them but burning them isnt the solution.

Pretty sure that Trunks was right here. It's a false equivalence.

[ugly]

Are people actually still trying to defend the trash that Thacker wrote for the BMJ?

If the BMJ doesn't want to be criticized, then maybe they shouldn't publish garbage articles from garbage people.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/06/08/meet-journalist-who-5g-conspiracy-theorist-and-his-new-collaborator-14835

http://www.keithkloor.com/?p=14917

This is the standard censorship gambit. Write up something stupid. Then cry censorship when it's criticized.

[koralis]

I
False equivalence. The AI is just deleting patterns according to a sites/apps rule set(good or bad, dumb or smart). An idiot doing a book burning has intention to his actions and is making a display of it.

So, if the AI goes and deletes every book it doesn't like (according to an algorithm) on Amazon Kindle, that's not a problem.

If the AI is put in a robot body that goes around and rounds up books to burn according to the same algorithm, that's cool too, since it's an algorithm and has no feeling behind it I guess.

But ultimately someone made that algorithm. The AI and Robot are merely tools to implement it. At the end of the day, someone, somewhere said THIS MUST GO. It IS the same thing whether its physical or virtual.

Now, if you want to argue that certain things should be burned, that's a different topic.

[Nunz]

So, if the AI goes and deletes every book it doesn't like (according to an algorithm) on Amazon Kindle, that's not a problem.

If the AI is put in a robot body that goes around and rounds up books to burn according to the same algorithm, that's cool too, since it's an algorithm and has no feeling behind it I guess.

But ultimately someone made that algorithm. The AI and Robot are merely tools to implement it. At the end of the day, someone, somewhere said THIS MUST GO. It IS the same thing whether its physical or virtual.

Now, if you want to argue that certain things should be burned, that's a different topic.

Very good point. The algorithm the person created is an intent, just like the person burning the book. Just because there isn't a "display" of it (which is arguable in the sense of a ban, kind of like how we can all see that KAC is banned right now) does not make the intent any different.

[Trunks0]

It does. But I get what Pax is trying to get at. The reality however is these platforms are privately run and owned. They can choose whatever rules they want so long as it legally allowed. It would be more like a bookstore choosing to remove an author or topic they don't want on their shelves.

[bill dennison]

whats all this P&R BS doing on this side ?

[Trunks0]

It's a bad analogy.

Fair enough, I tried! .

*late edits!*
p.s. If another mods thinks this has strayed to far into P&R. Please do feel free to select n' move the posts over or delete em.

[SD-[Inc]]

Fair enough, I tried! .

*late edits!*
p.s. If another mods thinks this has strayed to far into P&R. Please do feel free to select n' move the posts over or delete em.

I guess should media companies actually present factual data is a political topic these days. So better not go there. It used to not be such a gray area before was my point. It was demanded as a norm by society. Now it is completely murky. Politics is probably the main problem so the subject is better in P&R anyway. Dropping out of this discussion…

[Greasy]

I guess should media companies actually present factual data is a political topic these days. So better not go there. It used to not be such a gray area before was my point. It was demanded as a norm by society. Now it is completely murky. Politics is probably the main problem so the subject is better in P&R anyway. Dropping out of this discussion…

Facts in news good. Opinions in the news bad. Just report the facts. Let the people who read and watch it decide. Anything on social media that isn't a link to a true factual news source is to be ignored.

Think of it as a jury trial. Do you want to be tried by media, of a jury or your peers?

If you haven't noticed there's a LOT of morons out there. Social media isn't going away, and the idiot voice will keep getting louder on both sides of the dumbass spectrum.

[SubCog]

whats all this P&R BS doing on this side ?

Covid doesn't care about borders or parties! It infects each side no matter what!

[Nunz]

I mean .. some keep tryng to drag this thread into P&R by making ridiculous statements such as claims of the US being a fascist country. We are no where close to that. Can we stay in the realm of reality please? It'll keep the thread much more on-track ..

[Trunks0]

Agreed, lets stay outta the weeds

[Shapeshifter]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00403-0

Heart-disease risk soars after COVID — even with a mild case

Massive study shows a long-term, substantial rise in risk of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, after a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Even a mild case of COVID-19 can increase a person’s risk of cardiovascular problems for at least a year after diagnosis, a new study1 shows. Researchers found that rates of many conditions, such as heart failure and stroke, were substantially higher in people who had recovered from COVID-19 than in similar people who hadn’t had the disease.

What’s more, the risk was elevated even for those who were under 65 years of age and lacked risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes.

“It doesn’t matter if you are young or old, it doesn’t matter if you smoked, or you didn’t,” says study co-author Ziyad Al-Aly at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and the chief of research and development for the Veterans Affairs (VA) St. Louis Health Care System. “The risk was there.”

[andino]

https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/10/researchers-warn-that-social-media-may-be-fundamentally-at-odds-with-science/

A special set of editorials published in today’s issue of the journal Science argue that social media in its current form may well be fundamentally broken for the purposes of presenting and disseminating facts and reason. The algorithms are running the show now, they argue, and the systems priorities are unfortunately backwards.

In an incisive (and free to read) opinion piece by Dominique Brossard and Dietram Scheufele of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the basic disconnect with what scientists need and what social media platforms provide is convincingly laid out.

“Rules of scientific discourse and the systematic, objective, and transparent evaluation of evidence are fundamentally at odds with the realities of debates in most online spaces,” they write. “It is debatable whether social media platforms that are designed to monetize outrage and disagreement among users are the most productive channel for convincing skeptical publics that settled science about climate change or vaccines is not up for debate.”

The most elementary feature of social media that reduces the effect of communication by scientists is pervasive sorting and recommendation engines. This produces what Brossard and Scheufele call “homophilic self-sorting” — the ones who are shown this content are the ones who are already familiar with it. In other words, they’re preaching to the choir.

“The same profit-driven algorithmic tools that bring science-friendly and curious followers to scientists’ Twitter feeds and YouTube channels will increasingly disconnect scientists from the audiences that they need to connect with most urgently,” they write. And there’s no obvious solution: “The cause is a tectonic shift in the balance of power in science information ecologies. Social media platforms and their underlying algorithms are designed to outperform the ability of science audiences to sift through rapidly growing information streams and to capitalize on their emotional and cognitive weaknesses in doing so. No one should be surprised when this happens.”

“But it’s a good way for Facebook to make money,” said H. Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of the Science family of journals.

Thorp, who also wrote an editorial on the topic, told me that there are at least two distinct problems with the way scientists and social media interact these days.

“One is that, especially with Twitter, scientists like to use it to bat things around and openly air ideas, support them or shoot them down — the things they used to do standing around a blackboard, or at a conference,” he said. “It was going on before the pandemic, but now it’s become a major way that kind of interchange happens. The problem with that, of course, is that there is now an enduring permanent record of it. And some of the hypotheses that get made and turn out to be wrong, overturned in the ordinary course of science, get cherry picked by people who are trying to undermine what we’re doing.”

“The second is naivete about the algorithms, especially Facebook’s, which put a very high premium on disagreement and informal posts that spread disagreement. You know, ‘my uncle wore a mask to church and got COVID anyway’ — that’s going to beat out authoritative info every time,” he continued.

As Brossard and Scheufele point out, the combination of these things puts scientists “at a distinct disadvantage…as some of the very few participants in public debates whose professional norms and ethics dictate that they prioritize reliable, cumulative evidence over persuasive power.”

[Cyko]

Agreed, lets stay outta the weeds

Yes…please.

I really don’t want to close this thread, as there’s some good discussion going on, but it’s come really close in the last page or so.