I disagree that the hinge is "whom" but "why." And we should be clear about what censorship is. Censorship is the suppression of speech. That is never lawful.
There are many many cases of unlawful speech....
A pill purveyor claiming that their product
will cure cancer, but has no testing to verify it.
A real estate agent is severely restricted from
making any statements that could cause
discrimination.
An engineer is prohibited from divulging
technical info that's national security.
The list goes on & on.
Censorship happens, & is useful in some circumstances.
Or, at best it is backward "law-enforcement." What is lawful is the proscribing through law of the infringement of rights. So when does someone's speech infringe on another's rights? When the speech defrauds someone of some right. A person is free to make all the un-evidenced claims he wants, and should be free to do so—he must be free to do so—so long as he believes what he is saying. But if he knows that what he says is false and gains some portion of someone else's rights thereby, he has committed a crime. Clearly, if this is true, the burden is great to prove that someone did not believe the thing he claimed, knew that it was false, and defrauded someone of some right thereby.
Censorship is entirely the wrong idea to be looking at, IMO. It is authoritarian thinking.
I understand what you're saying.
I didn't post my comment to contest the utility of a practice, but to challenge the justification of finding fault with persons who don't engage in the practice, or of imposing the practice onto them, on the basis of statistics.
True. Some obstacles are placed unjustly. I find fault with those.
I believe those are emotionally justified obstacles to place on employees, but not lawfully justified obstacles. They presume guilt rather than innocence.
I agree that business owners (not businesses) have rights (people have rights, not abstractions). It all falls apart when the employer presumes someone is a risk without cause.
You don't recognize Covid 19 as a public health
threat, but I & legitimate health care researchers do.
Besides, it's my company, so I set the rules.
No, I want answers that are connected to the claims made during the panic.
I don't have them all.
If folks want to claim that science backs their claims, they must produce scientific results. Science is quantifiable. Maskwearing saves lives? OK. We did it. How many lives did it save? Two weeks will flatten the curve? OK. We did it. Let's look at the curve. Don't have that data? Then you didn't engage in science; you engaged in religion, and used the force of government to impose it.
There's been much research showing the efficacy
of vaccines, mask, social distancing, & hand washing.
I don't know why you can't find it.
The word "science" was used to justify all kinds of things for which scientific processes were never employed to substantiate. No scientific data, no science. It's not that complicated. So yes, I want the answers that should have resulted at the end of the massive social experiment we all engaged in. Except, there was no experiment. How do we know? Because there was no tracking; there was no control; there were no results; there was nothing to ask others to replicate. There was no science. What's left then? Religion. Which, when imposed by government, is called "tyranny."
Efficacy studies do not answer the questions I'm asking. And the questions I'm asking are valid if what is being peddled is labeled as "science."
I would agree with that statement if it were objective. Adding one thing makes it objective:
"Instead of seeking out reasons to eschew claimed protection against disease, tis better to seek understanding, & then make an informed decision about what to do."
IE, don't prejudice my decision with yours; allow me to do exactly what you claim makes for good decisionmaking.
Good society = I will seek understanding and make an informed decision. My decision. Not yours. You do the same.
Bad society = I don't get to seek understanding and make my own informed decision; my decision must be what you say it should be.
