I predicted this comment as soon as I saw the post. I knew there'd be someone saying 'but those scientists really were doodoo heads!' as if that were the point of the article.
That’s not at all what I said, but the article does in fact spend considerable time trying to establish the authors of the GDB as authorities and leaders of a legitimate and widely supported movement, right? It doesn’t really talk about how many legitimate and widely supported scientists disagree with the GBD and who point out correctly that it’s trying to trade real death today for speculative harm in the indeterminate future. The article seems one-sided and biased, and the GDB is speculation, whether it’s right or not. Debate over the right way to handle things is healthy, but people who cry censorship when their risky view is not adopted without question, and when real lives are on the line, are trying to sway public opinion using debate tactics. This doesn’t need to be an us-vs-them argument, attacks and hyperbole just add confusion to what is an actual hard to answer question that nobody knows yet.
The article isn't about the harm caused by failing to adopt the Great Barrington Declaration.
Its assertion is that the government was meeting with companies in an effort to get them to suppress the Great Barrington Declaration and other views that didn't support the government's plan of action. This is both illegal and bad for public discourse and truth-seeking.
When the government gets to rule on truth and falsehood we then become unable to pick apart government-approved facts. Galileo's heresy trials, nearly 400 years ago, illustrate this problem.
