[chronofar]

> There is plenty of room for dissent, but it stops being “dissent” when it is simply denying reality.

Ah yes of course, when the common view gets the label of “reality” dissent is no longer “dissent.” /s

If only everyone could see the line in the same place, but well if that were the case I don’t suppose there’d be any dissent at all.

[olliej]

... cool, so if I can produce measurable numbers of objective fact is that now an opinion that is up for discussion?

I mean that is a common refrain among the various anti-basic science groups, but I'm curious if that is the view you take

[chronofar]

And it’s a common refrain of “follow the science” dogmatists to attempt to paint things as “objective facts” in a decidedly unscientific way. Just what “measurable numbers” are you referring to and what “objective facts” do you think they reveal?

You would be very hard pressed to find a self respecting scientist who calls any of their work “objective fact.” There are several ways to display views that are “anti-basic science,” and you are displaying one of them.

But to try and wrangle your question into what I think it was intending (though severely misled such that I needed the above preamble): Do I believe established high probability scientific consensus and recommendations can be discarded or disagreed with as mere opinion? Absolutely not. I am not at all “anti-basic science” in the way that you think I am. I think it’s quite possible to accept the scientific consensus on COVID as it exists so far and still argue currently against mandatory vaccinations in different settings.