This is exactly how I feel.
1 Like
Yes. I keep saying it. Censorship was always part of the plan.
But we give up certain freedoms for public good ALL THE TIME. Speed limits. No drinking and driving. No smoking in public places. The requirement to register for the draft. Shoes and shirts in restaurants. All sorts of health rules about restaurants. Building codes. Age limits on driving anything motorized. Drinking age. Not being able to yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Fire codes limiting the number of people in all sorts of places. Drug laws, laws against prostitution, pornography. Noise control ordinances. Hunting laws. Laws about what you can carry on an airplane. Lots of laws about what companies can spew out of their factories, or what food companies can put in your cereal, or farmers can spray on your tomatoes. Itās ALWAYS a balance between the freedoms of the few and the good of the many. Itās just a matter of trying to draw a careful line, and hitting a balance, and we are all often going to disagree about what the balance should be. Life is very rarely black and white, and rules are very rarely all or nothing. Thatās the challenge of living in a community, and realizing that things we do affect other people.
11 Likes
The examples you cited were not government officials, or other folks āin chargeā of the pandemic response.
My apologies that Iām missing something here - Iām not sure what method youāre referring to. Can you clarify?
I know that there are people who think that the restrictions in place were not warranted / worthwhile, and that the amount of good that they did was not worth the cost. Itās a difficult call to make, to weigh potentially serious illness and deaths vs. missed opportunities, limited life experiences, potentially worse mental health situations, etc. While I personally supported many restrictions, I can understand weighing the risks vs rewards differently and coming to a different conclusion.
However, I do not think it is accurate to say that permanent lockdown was the only thing we could really do to control the virus. I think there are a lot of data out there indicating that measures like masking, improving indoor ventilation, shifting activities outdoors, creating bubbles/cohorts to limit the number of close contacts, etc. did a lot to help control / reduce the spread. Not eliminate it necessarily, but control it.
7 Likes
So mask mandates, and the very limited lockdowns didnāt save lives? How do we know? Is it more likely, given what worked eventually in Wuhan, they didnāt go far enough? I am not arguing this is the path we should have taken. But doing nothing wasnāt either.
3 Likes
The examples I citedā¦? Do you mean the Pandemic Preparedness Exercise?
Sure. Does that document assume āauthorityā messaging to be factual? It specifically called for censoring āfalseā information. Does that sound like itās targeting officials? Didnāt you also complain about a social media platform being shut down. That is also not an āauthority.ā
2 Likes
When a government body holds back the truth until they decide when to reveal it for the sake of appearance/feelings. (Iāll add: the CDC has intentionally lied to the public before)
The cdc? And if yes- under both administrations?
1 Like
How would you feel if someone said this a month or two ago: āWith spread this high and data still emerging on vaccine efficacy against variants, Iād prefer for the vaccinated to wear masks. However, even if having the vaccinated wear masks had no direct value, Iād still want the vaccinated to wear masks so that it is easier to enforce mask wearing for the unvaccinated.ā
Iām just curious where reasonable public health messaging / strategies end and unacceptable politics start in your book.
Also, actually, any thoughts on whether that message would have affected mask compliance?
1 Like
Yes government/agencies, theyāre somewhat intertwined.
Absolutely. And through the decades. Since our government has expanded so much, it is impossible for any administration to control all of government even if they tried.
I would have respected this.
6 Likes
I actually think it wouldnāt have changed a bunch. I may be wrong. People are either following the rules now or not. But it would have taken away the question of whether or not they worked.
1 Like
Do you not believe this exercise provided any impact or influence over pandemic management? If not, what was the point? Also, if not, I think we have very different views of what is going on.
I went back and looked at it again and never noticed the distinct wording. (So thank you for pointing me back to it). It actually doesnāt say āfalse informationā, it says āfalse messagingā. I had previously interpreted that as āfalse informationā (which I would still dispute), but now that I recognize the distinction, itās an even bigger dispute.
Whether itās Fauci or Dr Joe Schmo, I donāt believe in censorship. Particularly when Iām making personal health decisions. There will always be differing views and perspectives on medical issues.
Yes I did. Iām sorry. Not understanding your point.
I think youāve identified our base disagreement. I donāt see actions taken by the government or vaccine manufacturers or whomever as some kind of plot when it is much more easily explained by a bunch of people trying to solve an incredibly difficult set of problems that come along once in a hundred years. In addition, I am left guessing as to what this ācensorshipā seeks to actually advance.
8 Likes
Ah, but then we have to agree on a definition of censorship. Censorship is an authority, particularly a government, saying: you canāt say that, and if you do, weāll arrest you. It is NOT individuals being held accountable for what they say by other individuals, by private industries, or by the court of public opinion. For instance, (I have no idea what you do for a living; sorry if this is it) letās say you own a restaurant. I have a perfect right to say:" I think your restaurant sucks and no one should eat there." But you have a perfect right to then never let me in the door again, and for all your loyal customers to say: āSusieās dumb and she has no taste; you shouldnāt listen to her.ā I also have a legal right to say: āThere are rats in the back and you serve dog meat.ā And then you have the legal right to sue me for slander, and, if I canāt prove I was telling the truth, for me to be held accountable for my words and have to pay you reparations for lost business. Also, if my job was, say, as a restaurant reviewer, and even if I didnāt say those things in the course of my job but I did say them in another capacity, theyād have a perfect right to fire me. We have rights, but all those rights come with responsibilities.
4 Likes
I donāt think we disagree about any of that. Iām referring to the following statement in the pandemic preparedness exercise (the word ācensorshipā is not used, but the guidance does fall within my understanding of what censorship is):
āmedia companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though the use of technology.ā
I have seen this happening. Just one example, Ivermectin being a Covid treatment option. Presenting an argument against Ivermectin is not the same as taking down the account because that is suggested. Even labeling it as āfalseā is not the same as taking it down. I donāt really care if something is labeled as false as long as it remains available. A āfalseā label just guides me to other opinions or additional info.
I am left guessing if people have different interpretations of the words of certain world and organization leaders or if they just havenāt heard them.
But a private company taking down a post, or closing an account, is NOT censorship. Itās capitalism. A person has a right to say what they choose; a business has a right to refuse a customer service based on their behavior (not, I quickly add, based on who they ARE; that falls under human right violations. But behavior, yes, absolutely. Just as you can throw someone out of a restaurant if you donāt like what they are saying to the staff.) You can certainly think that that is wrong, and disagree with it, or even think itās bad business. Those are totally defensible opinions. But, by definition, it is not censorship.
1 Like