[trafalgarcircle]

This is my first post on hackernews, I registered as I feel this perspective isn’t but should be considered: Many had already came to this conclusion based on available data around the middle of 2020; however, the body of this report (that the virus mainly harms already-unhealthy individuals, not the majority of the population) as well as the corollary (widespread lockdowns are not required/will statistically do more harm than good as only at-risk individuals should self-isolate) were universally regarded as a “wild, baseless, unhinged, and potentially sinophobic conspiracy theory” by most social media, “fact” “checkers”, and large news organizations; sharing this CDC report’s sentiment would result in the individual sharing it experiencing “de-boosting” and “‘platform integrity’ moderation activity” (hidden post and banning). Is it the case that earlier insistence of “the science is settled” and the corresponding moderation activity was too confident? Major news organizations were stating as solid facts their position on COVID-19’s origins, as well as information surrounding it, but are now walking back those claims - should we reevaluate our confidence ratings we assign to news agencies’ outputs, or was this a special case? If so, why?