Cẩn thận với "đồng thuận cao"

-----

Sherelle Jacobs warns of the cult of scientific ‘consensus.‘ A slice:

Research on the psychological impact of lockdowns remains extraordinarily stunted, save a few tentative papers on the effect of lockdowns on mental health and face masks on child development. A new academic project on the effects of restrictions, Global Collateral, has struggled to make headway. Leading Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff was recently suspended from Twitter after questioning the consensus on face masks, and whether the vaccine is necessary for children and those with prior natural infection.

Worryingly, freedom of speech on such controversial issues (vấn đề gây tranh cãi) seems to be a one-way street. Prof Kulldorff is censored on Twitter for his perspective, and yet no less contentious (có khả năng gây bất đồng) contrasting opinions (ý kiến ngược) are given a free run. Take, for example, Oxford’s Prof Julian Savulescu, who has published high-profile papers arguing that mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations could be justified (“If people can be sent to war against their will, in certain circumstances some levels of coercion are justified in the war on the virus”). Prof Savulescu should be free to make his case without fear of cancellation – but so should his intellectual opponents.

Bài trước: "Ngăn sông cấm chợ", cách ly sai quy định