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

 

[stvdv]

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

I thought you were vegetarian
That takes care of such trouble
(My OPINION , experience)

 

[stvdv]

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

Good point
I did vote for option 3

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

Then that's a no-brainer IMHO

My tip: Add a default header kind of thing to all posts on RF Starting with "Opinion". It's opinion anyway, right? Especially if that means RF is protected from stupid lawsuits. And it would save me the trouble to remind the other that his claim is just his opinion, which he just forgot

So,
IF I reply or post
THEN RF Software adds "OPINION" ... e.g.:
@stvdv's (OPINION)

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

I read your lard example

 

[stvdv]

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

It took me quite awhile to get used to the new RF layout, but now I discovered most links, and even think there are some nice improvements

Still,

I have 2 questions:
Question1: Does this thread (Forum) fall under "Debate Forum" or "Discussion Forum". I just got a RF warning#10, so I try to avoid collecting more of these
(Seeing some replies here it looks like all bets (rules) are of here...so, I'm just checking)

Question2: I tried to find my list of RF Warnings, but could not find the link nor the warnings, or did RF grace us with a clean slate since the big RF overhaul?

 

[stvdv]

Interesting assessment and it does make sense,

IMO + IME, it is always opinion, when it comes to medicine and advice, because there can always be one exception for who the rule doesn't apply or even is deadly.
For examples the Covid vaccine. For most there is no problem, but there have been people who died from the vaccine or lifelong handicap

Same with peanuts, for most the peanuts are great, even for monkeys, but a few people are allergic and would die if they eat peanuts

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?

Hence, even the Covid vaccine has small print, warning that people with certain conditions should not take it (for me it's a no go).

If even Big Pharma doesn't make a claim, instead phrases meds indirectly as opinion by using small print, to cover getting sued

Then don't you think, that we better use "opinion" and never "claim"? Unless one is omniscient I think claims are hugely overrated

Hence my advice (opinion) to RF mods:
Add a small print to each and every post stating "this is an opinion". Big Pharma covers its butt, as should RF do

e.g.:
@stvdv(Just his OPINION)
And then I add my opinion
Idiot proof against claim-lawsuits

 

[Kenny]

It was, and still is, an effort to control the narrative rather than seeking truth. Please remove restrictions and let freedom of speech be a Constitutional right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It was, and still is, an effort to control the narrative rather than seeking truth. Please remove restrictions and let freedom of speech be a Constitutional right.

This is a private forum. Freedom of speech is about being free from state restrictions on speech.

And the rules here limit what we can say in all sorts of ways. For instance, the rules stop me from fully expressing what I think of you as a pastor who kept in-person services going all through the pandemic.