[giantg2]

I guess that depends on who gets to decide value and in what manner.

Settled scientific facts are not the same as politics and policy. They can be useful in determining policy, but are not a default policy. It also depends on how those facts get linked together. You need to question the n-order impacts to devise good policy.

"If there is a belief among some that settled scientific questions are a matter of non-expert public debate, then that needs to be corrected."

Policy should be debated by the people. You need an informed citizenry for democracy to function.

Sure, we can publicly shame people for just about anything (1st Ammendment). What is acceptable depends on what the group or society decides. For example, should we fat shame people to reduce healthcare costs on aggregate?

We also need to weigh societal benefit of shaming against any societal detriment like a reduction in civility.

[mindslight]

> Settled scientific facts are not the same as politics and policy

Except that we are talking about scientific facts here, and not policy. If the political movement accepted that vaccines are seemingly safe and effective, but still rejected getting them based on some other critique, that would be a political topic. Or if say the "anti-mask" movement were solely against mask mandates, while encouraging everyone to be personally responsible and wear a mask, that would be political (I myself would have been in this camp if more people had worn respirators). But rather than making a defensible political point in the wider context of scientific reality, these movements have backstopped their positions with blatantly false scientific-seeming disinformation. And so the overall situation really is a matter of scientific facts having been politicized, and not science being used to dictate policy.

[giantg2]

Perhaps the lumping together of various opinions and he implication that the political movement doesn't accept general safety is what's causing the disconnect here. It seems that many of those being shamed on that Reddit did not share misinformation, or even any public misinformation on the vaccine.

Vaccines are generally safe. There are a number of factors that an individual may weigh to consider their value. Many of the opponents are against mandates so that individuals can weigh the choice themselves.

Sure, there are people who say things that are blatantly untrue (on both sides). We can try to shame them for false information. We still have the question of how civil this shaming should be. It also depends on group/public sentiment on how useful this will be - it could be seen as a badge of honor, group think can play a role too.