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
>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.

Name one time in the entirety of recorded history when "the decentralized market of ideas" did anything of the sort.

>>krapp+rV
> Name one time in the entirety of recorded history when "the decentralized market of ideas" did anything of the sort.

This is literally how most scientific progress is made.

>>s3r3ni+rX
No, scientific progress is made by people educated in a particular field of study in the work of prior authorities in that field, making hypotheses and following established experimental methods, then publishing their results for review and verification by their peers. In other words, by the "centralized authority" of scientific consensus.

Science absolutely does not work by just letting everyone believe whatever they want and somehow just expecting the truth to "win."

>>krapp+XX
I would call a group of educated professionals debating all sides / data for a particular hypothesis, coming to a general consensus after rigorous evaluation and debate, essentially what the "market of ideas" is meant to convey.

What you don't see here, for example, is any mention of a "President of Science" or other committee making that call, nor particular suppression of lines of inquiry.

>>s3r3ni+JY
What you also don't see in that process is every viewpoint given equal weight and consideration, or in the case of ignorant quacks, even any consideration.

>>vkou+T11
And that’s decided by the president of science?