No where in the declaration do I see the term "hospital capacity".

One criticism, amongst many:

> David Naylor, co-chair of the Government of Canada's COVID-19 Immunity Task Force, told the National Post: "Obviously, the Great Barrington fix will excite the minimizers who pretend COVID-19 is not much worse than the flu and enliven the libertarians who object to public health measures on principle … So be it: they've been offside all along."[5] Naylor also pointed out that a study published in August in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine examined Sweden's "no-lockdown" policy's effect on herd immunity among the Swedish population, finding it did not improve herd immunity despite higher rates of hospitalization and death than in neighbouring countries.[5][56] According to Naylor, the policy advocated by signatories of the declaration would never be the "controlled demographic burn that some zealots imagine", and because of exponential growth of infections would lead to a situation where "with masses of people sick in their 40s and 50s; hospitals will be over-run and deaths will skyrocket as they did in Italy and New York".[5] With the prospect of a vaccine available within months [of the October 2020 statement], Naylor questioned the logic of the Great Barrington strategy, asking: "Why on earth should we rush to embrace a reckless prescription for a demographically-selective national 'chickenpox party' involving a dangerous pathogen?"[5]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#C...

It is questionable (to use a charitable term) whether "more" doctors doubt or support the interventions.

That might be an argument you'd like to take to a proper debate. What we're arguing about is whether having such a debate constitutes "dangerous misinformation".

The debate has been had. Rogan has been told countless times why he's wrong. He continues spewing dangerous misinformation regardless

What are you opinions on free speech and how should they relate to public broadcasting?

I'm struggling to see the relevance of that question

Well your struggle to connect them is evidence of my point.

Ok, so let’s say Rogan is sharing dangerous misinformation: what do you think should be done about it?

I'm not sure what should be done about it, but again don't see the relevance of that question. Your argument was that there's value to be had out of such a debate, which there isn't. And that a debate cannot be misinformation, which is again clearly false. Packaging misinformation up as a debate doesn't stop it being misinformation.