What's next, in that case?
I'd rather focus on "what now", because in my opinion there has not been any candid communication between the yays and the nays. All of the media produced along the lines of "5 common vaccine myths DEBUNKED by fauci" are drivel and work backwards from the position that anti vaxxers are dumb and irrational and all their complaints are totally wrong, rather than actually trying to convince people of anything.
What I would love to see is a public, formal debate between two people/groups about vaccine mandates. I might even pay to see it, or fund it or something. I think the closest we have had to this was Rand Paul "grilling" Fauci in a congressional hearing, which was not helpful because it devolved into the participants yelling over each other.
>candid communication doesn't address if the opposing view has overwhelming (and un-candid) counterpoints
I'm not sure if a formal debate counts as "candid communication", but I do think a formal debate would address this. If one side is totally unreasonable and none of their arguments hold up, everyone will see that. If one side just reverts to yelling, everyone will see that.
I know this is a pipe dream, because our media masters have decided that vaccine opposition is just too dangerous. But frankly I cannot think of a better opportunity for the people who claim they know best to actually prove that their opponents are wrong.
To remove false information is not a failure to be candid
We have always removed false information
A private company removing content is not censorship
Public health has always been in favor of removing false information
The perception is being reinforced by false moral equivalences and false claims about the past
There is no downside to removing structured false information being presented by a foreign power
Your hand-wringing doesn't make sense
Logically many of your points that use ‘always’ are highly unlikely to be true, because we’d only need find one case to prove the statement false.
"vaccine producers are immune from liability", is not false but is anti-vaccine ... its taken down.
When reports about problems with AstraZeneca were coming out, those were tagged as misinformation, today most countries no longer give out AZ vaccine.
Theyre suppressing truthful info, why should you trust anything they say?
> ... there should be a preference for an alternative to the AstraZeneca [1]
> Canada’s largest province says it will stop giving out first doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine due to concerns over its link to rare blood clots [2]
> More nations halt use of AstraZeneca's COVID vaccine citing clots [3]
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/use-of-the-astraz...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canadas-large...
[3] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/more-nations-halt-use-o...
False. Here's the note on the image showing vaccine usage:
"Note: The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is known as Covishield in India. Only countries that report doses administered are shown. Other countries may have approved vaccines but have not administered them yet."
A previous fundamental tenant of public health was candid communication.
Censorship goes against that - many activities through this - such as not promoting general health and wellness, diet etc, - go against past foundations of PH.
If people are questioning the legitimacy of PH, censorship reinforces that perception.