zlacker

>>themgt+(OP)
> One CDC scientist told us about her shame and frustration about what happened to American children during the pandemic: “CDC failed to balance the risks of Covid with other risks that come from closing schools,” she said. “Learning loss, mental health exacerbations were obvious early on and those worsened as the guidance insisted on keeping schools virtual. CDC guidance worsened racial equity for generations to come. It failed this generation of children.”

>>theand+q3
The worst part of the pandemic beside policies that would swing back and forth (which is kind of understandable if you're learning as you go) was the inability to have discussions about the pros and cons of shutdowns and other pandemic related policies.

Social media and mainstream media saw it fit to censor dissenting voices --not those of quacks, we can mostly all agree on minimizing the voices of quacks but shutting down medical professionals and medical academics and so on is very concerning.

The only people they allowed to be wrong about the pandemic were govt officials. They could get it wrong and right it as many times as necessary.

>>mc32+wR
> Social media and mainstream media saw it fit to censor dissenting voices --not those of quacks, we can mostly all agree on minimizing the voices of quacks but shutting down medical professionals and medical academics and so on is very concerning.

No I don't agree with censoring _any_ voices - precisely because of this issue. The decentralized market of ideas will address the "quacks" in the room, as I don't trust any central authority to do that for me.

If a centralized authority wields power in a way that creates negative consequences, you don't give them _more_ power, or just hope that they'll do the right thing.

>>s3r3ni+IU
I don't think on any time scale that the marketplace of ideas is sufficient to get rid of quacks. There are plenty of popular health-related practices which have had plenty of time to demonstrate their clinical efficacy, but which have failed to do so. Acupuncture, reiki, homeopathy etc all have people that believe in them despite the absence of evidence.

But on _short_ timescales, during an emergency when people are emotional, and in a context where media can benefit from amplifying a message whether or not it's true ... we've seen enough people believe some harmful stuff, and sometimes require extra medical attention because of it.

I'm not saying censorship alone is an answer -- but the marketplace of ideas is not functioning as you describe.

>>abeppu+YV
>we've seen enough people believe some harmful stuff, and sometimes require extra medical attention because of it.

>I'm not saying censorship alone is an answer -- but the marketplace of ideas is not functioning as you describe.

Honestly, neither is curated news. At the time of this poll, 41% of people who identified as Democrats believe that if someone caught covid, their chance of hospitalization was 50% or higher. The actual number is 1-5%. Massive amounts of Republicans and Independents also believed this as well. You assume a fair, pure and incorruptible curator, which doesn't exist. Censorship isn't the answer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/briefing/atlanta-shooting...