Member Poll: RF COVID-19 Policy Revisited

[metis]

The more recent strains of covid are not as deadly as the original, plus we now have vaccines.

 

[Twilight Hue]

...... the forum could be held liable if someone posts dangerous medical advice.

Requiring a label saying "Opinion" would probably keep us covered.

Edit: not to mention make it less likely that someone would follow it in the first place.

Interesting assessment and it does make sense, but is it opinion if it is backed up say by The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons which is run by completely qualified and credentialed people who may not share the same views as other equally qualified and credentialed people?

But I do say that lawyers these days certainly have turned people into paranoid and reactive individuals out of fear of being litigated at.

 

[Heyo]

I think it's censorship, control of speech, so I would advise it to be removed. COVID it's over anyways.

While Covid isn't over, the debate is.
Anti-vaxxers still exist, but they are more likely to oppose MMR here than Covid.

So, treating Covid as a special case is superfluous now. Get rid of the policy.

I think everyone should know not to take advice from strangers on the interwebs, but if you want to keep it, make it broader. Anyone who makes health claims should provide evidence (link to a reputable source) on demand.
That is good practice anyway and would get rid of the "you can look it up for yourself" and "I'm not doing your homework for you" annoying answers.

 

[sun rise]

It's not opinion when you have real genuine medical professionals who didn't view Covid through a political lens like Fauci did.

AAPS Announces Updated COVID Booklet

An updated version of the popular booklet by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment, is now available and can be downloaded free from No C…

aapsonline.org

Resources

That illustrates the problem where @Twilight Hue 's politics lead to false claims.

 

[Watchmen]

Remove the restrictions. Let members post freely according to normal rules. No need for censorship. We’re (mostly) adults and should be capable of sifting through fact and fiction and verifying information independently rather than relying on RF leadership (which may or may not do so accurately, reputably, and without bias).

 

[Watchmen]

While Covid isn't over, the debate is.
Anti-vaxxers still exist, but they are more likely to oppose MMR here than Covid.

So, treating Covid as a special case is superfluous now. Get rid of the policy.

I think everyone should know not to take advice from strangers on the interwebs, but if you want to keep it, make it broader. Anyone who makes health claims should provide evidence (link to a reputable source) on demand.
That is good practice anyway and would get rid of the "you can look it up for yourself" and "I'm not doing your homework for you" annoying answers.

On demand? That’s a slippery slope.

 

[Heyo]

On demand? That’s a slippery slope.

How so? I'm OK with you making a statement without a reference. Maybe that reference is commonly known, or at last known to me. But if I have no idea how you came to make that statement, it is upon you to provide a source when I ask for it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Covid is now just another virus we all have to be aware of. It's not special, it needs no special rules.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Visibility bump.

 

[David1967]

@Saint Frankenstein the forum could be held liable if someone posts dangerous medical advice.

Requiring a label saying "Opinion" would probably keep us covered.

Edit: not to mention make it less likely that someone would follow it in the first place.

Just put a disclaimer that states that these opinions are not necessarily the views of RF.

 

[David1967]

I just wish we would have had something like that before someone posted that eating rancid lard would improve my sex life.

Wait, you mean it doesn't?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How so? I'm OK with you making a statement without a reference. Maybe that reference is commonly known, or at last known to me. But if I have no idea how you came to make that statement, it is upon you to provide a source when I ask for it.

It could end up as an invitation for anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists to sea-lion people who mention established facts from real medicine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Should we keep the current policy in place, should we modify it, or should we entirely remove it and allow all views about COVID-19 even if they contradict medical organizations and/or are not accompanied by links (whether from sources deemed reputable per staff review or otherwise)?

My personal preference would be to get rid of the COVID-specific rule but at the same time make it a rule violation to post any medical misinformation as fact (maybe as an update to Rule 9?).

 

[Eddi]

My personal preference would be to get rid of the COVID-specific rule but at the same time make it a rule violation to post any medical misinformation as fact (maybe as an update to Rule 9?).

I agree with this