[mandmandam]

People offering their own science that "masks work", for example, were shouted down by the same people who later demanded their use.

Mentioning the scientific and logical flaws with Daszak's Lancet paper, or discussing the lab leak theory, got your posts deleted. Many legit scientists received death threats after speaking of them, thanks to the media's coverage of those topics.

Where was the debate on those topics? Not on social media, where lab leak discussion was censored. Not on corporate news. Not in the NYT or WaPo, at least not for the first 20 months or so.

This all isn't as simple as you seem to think. The science is not as clear as is claimed. The messaging is inexcusably bad. The trials are hidden to protect us from "misinterpretation". The contracts are secret, the analysis is fragmented.

For a current example, the scientific basis and the cost/benefit analysis for vaccinating under 14 year olds is incredibly suspect. Out of 1 million Irish children, one under the age of 14 has died from Corona in all this time - one child. Yet leaky vaccines with rapidly fading effectiveness are being pushed on them by state agencies.

The only reasoning given - trust the professionals. Trust the science. There's no debate on it, no dissenting view tolerated. Those with a different view can't show their evidence or their reasoning - they're smeared and vilified, called right-wing, Russian agents, Trumpists, morons, plague rats.

Meanwhile, vulnerable populations such as the elderly and sick in poor countries that can't afford the vaccines are watching us put the fourth shot into young and middle aged healthy people. It's profoundly sick - and not really very scientific, if preventing novel outbreaks and death is the goal.

[happytoexplain]

For the most part, people are trying their best. There is no "perfect" or even "best" answer, but policy must exist, and it is a misinterpretation to assume that the existence of policy must mean that those supporting it are sure it is perfect. Your tone is omnipresent: The fixation on the worst aspects of argument - lamenting the concepts of "shouting down", "censorship", etc. Yes, these are well represented on all sides, and are magnified by the nature of the problem (health - the most concrete consequence of policy that there is). However, the fact is that, for all the people with a reasonable non-policy opinion, there are people who are irrationally anti-science and they have an impact on our health, and that will inevitably provoke a strong response, and part of that response will be an over-application of criticism. Returning back that over-applied criticism yet even more over-applied is what the people who use your tone are doing, and it's a very human part of anger and argument, but this back-and-forth is destroying the very idea of communication.

It is not, as you say, as simple as many people think. And yet, while you have legitimate complaints, you then oversimplify by saying "the only reasoning given - trust the professionals. Trust the science." But that is actually one of the most reasonable options in an unsure situation. It is unrealistic and unfair to expect normal people to be able to justify why they e.g. get a flu shot beyond "trusting professionals". Yes, it is wrong to blindly trust science if there is some kind of extenuating circumstance that suggests your personal situation might differ from the norm, or the science is being put forward by a very small group of professionals and is potentially biased; but it is also wrong to blindly distrust science merely because some people are assholes about it, or people with the "wrong politics" are championing it.

I would say the best thing is to keep criticisms specific and strong, and avoid the temptation of returning hostility and politicization using the same broad strokes with which you are receiving them. You receive news and opinions and videos and forum posts from an enormously wide context, but you deliver it in the narrowest possible context (that of an individual human), so you can't afford to be as broad (e.g. "all people on X side of Y argument do Z.").

[mandmandam]

> For the most part, people are trying their best.

I believe that about regular people. Believing that about government, media, or megacorps is foolish.

> this back-and-forth is destroying the very idea of communication.

That scenario was created when media and politicians and Pfizer et al. took control of the narrative by force.

To take just one example - they're trying to stick bi or tri-annual shots into children at €20 a pop. There's no scientific or economic justification for it. The math isn't there, the evidence isn't there, and crucially, there are better places for those shots to go. It's not sane.

The only reason children in wealthy countries are getting shots before vulnerable people elsewhere is cash. It's pure greed. There are very real consequences to this.

Your comment is reasonable, with much wisdom - but what they're doing isn't motivated by science, or by helping people. It's just greed. It's evil.

[raxxorraxor]

You have to be perfect if you deny people taking their turn to speak. Or alternatively accept that you could be wrong and let people propose other ideas. Even if you believe these to have absolutely no merit, it is not something you have the right to answer for everyone. This was always one of the largest problems of scientific progress, not "wrong science". If it is wrong there will be a counter-proof. Not some self-asserted authority to filter anything.

The same concept applies for making health decisions of course. It would indeed be an interesting question if states have overstepped their authority with some enforced measures and I believe it can be argued that they did.

An appeal to authority is weak if some professionals get shouted down. And they were and some of them later proved correct. You undermine your own argument if you propose this to be the most reasonable option. I hope the communication and tolerance for diverging opinion is seriously improved in the next pandemic. It has to.