While the restrictions to human freedoms are immoral in a general sense, in the context of a pandemic, it is permissible to impose them to stop a genuine threat.
Our Constitutional rights include these fundamental freedoms all of which touch on religious practice.
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
However, the Canadian Constitution, unlike its American counterpart, allows these freedoms to be abridged, essentially when a legislature decides it is in the public interest to do so. The legislatures are very limited in their abridging powers, but it is very likely that a court of this Country will say that the pandemic restrictions are reasonable. So good luck to those who challenge the restrictions on legal grounds.
By the measures imposed on us, no one as lost their right to hold in their conscience such beliefs as they wish including a specifically "religious" belief. No one has lost the ability to communicate with others about those beliefs except from the pulpit before a congregation, or from one congregant to another.
The only impingement is on assembly and association in a church or hall. Online meetings are not prohibited. So, we are down to a very narrow, temporary loss of a "freedom" that is not a necessary element of religious belief.
Those who are aggrieved by the closure of a church ought to remember this part of the Lord's Prayer:
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
It is tempting to promote the cause of church services - but it is better not to give into the temptation, not just because it is against the law, but because the prohibition is meant to deliver us from the evil of the virus.
Perhaps you have your own definition of "inalienable," but the word is normally used to describe something that can't be taken away from its possessor. Then you go on to describe a circumstance in which you think an "inalienable" human freedom can and should be taken away.
The model you're laying out isn't one of inalienable rights, but of a kind of borrowed rights, with citizens free to exercise their rights in good times but expected to surrender them when their betters wish it. Rights under such a system aren't rights at all, particularly in our fallen world in which we can expect politicians to act from cynical motives as often (more often?) than they do from good faith motives.
If you don't like "inalienable" go with "fundamental" or "inherent" or something else. My point is that these are basic "givens" as to what it means to be human. They ought never to be taken away, but it is prudent in some extreme cases to suspend them for the common good, and to protect other goods that are further up the hierarchy of values. So for instance, the freedom to gather might be put on hold for a time in order to preserve lives.
I don't think that health officials and government members who heed their advice imagine themselves as your 'betters.' That's pretty cynical. Both groups are miserable over this crisis and likely wish they didn't have to deal with it. Don;t imagine them as a righteous, secular brigade waving away rights on a whim. It's simply the assembly piece, my goodness, nothing else has been compromised one bit. Restrictions on assembly past the crisis? Wouldn't make it past courts/the charter or the court of public opinion for even a second. Let's not trade too much in abstract talk of rights. The situation on the ground is not a threat to religion in Canada. At all.
Your essay implies that AHS has not yet provided the public with a “compelling, transparent, and evidenced-based rationale for the current restrictions.” I agree. Now, after 13 month of said “temporary” restrictions and a press that is prostrate, what on heaven or earth makes you think they would freely provide them now?
One could just as easily argue that Pastor Coates is standing up for the truly vulnerable. The people who have had their plights dismissed by canned talking points and pejorative eye rolls made by government officials and the mainstream press for a year and counting: overdose victims and their families; the teens who have developed eating disorders at unprecedented rates; the children who have had their educational and social development halted; the people who don’t yet realize they have tumours that are festering away, undiagnosed. Who speaks for them?
Pastor Coates has demonstrated the courage to attempt to activate* the court system whose job it is to adjudicate exactly the kinds of questions that you raised toward the end of your piece, Reverend. If you were truly interested in a detailed analysis of those points, you should celebrate their airing in court. Nevertheless, it would seem that Dr. Hinshaw is more sheepish about presenting the medical evidenced than you’d hoped*.
(Granted, this link is from the legal body representing Pastor Coates; however, I could not find another press release describing the procedural delay.)
Thanks for the thoughtful response - if you want to catch me directly, you can shoot me an email at colehartin(at)gmail(dot)com.
I think I hear where you're coming from - that the Alberta Public Health perhaps should be more forthright with their evidence. And I agree that a trial will make this happen. But, on the other hand, I mean, other than boarder restrictions, vaccines, etc., limiting large gatherings help stop the spread of COVID 19 where there are community tranmissions. That this has gone on far longer than anyone has hoped means that the change in behaviour has to follow suit, unfortunately. It's not a great situation for anyone, really. Certainly, there are other unintended negative impacts, and these need to be weighed with the good of preserving life.
I guess, overall, I agree with you. If Pastor Coates wants to grandstand, he might has well see it through in court.
Thank you for your response, Reverend. I appreciate your thoughtful reply. It’s interesting, I have been a church-goer for most of my adult life, but this year pushed me deeper into Christianity than ever. I’ve found that there is nothing like being told what you must believe to help you realize it’s time to learn more about what you actually do. It’s been fascinating to learn about the richness and insight of the Trinity, God’s Covenants, what Jesus’ decision to die on the Cross and his resurrection actually mean. Have you heard of Jonathan Pageau? I agree with him; I’ve come to see Christianity as actually the most accurate way to understand man and the universe.
As a completely non-legal layperson, I would tend to agree with Vian’s take that the Canadian courts are unlikely to overturn the significant majority of these measures. I have reviewed the scientific literature on the fatality of COVID-19 in March-April 2020 (when we were being told that 150,000 people would die if Ontario didn’t lockdown), the accuracy of PCR testing, and the efficacy of the vaccines, and in each case the medical literature has been very substantially different and filled with much more uncertainty than what is being shared by politicians, public health officials, and the mainstream press. Other democratic jurisdictions to the right of us (i.e. Florida) and to the left of us (i.e. Sweden) have either refused to implement or have almost entirely scaled back the types of restrictions that have become banal and indefinite for most Canadians. Thousands and thousands of physicians and epidemiologists around the world have gone on the public record to say that these measures are either ineffective and/or cause more harm than good. Lockdowns are, at the end of the day, nothing more than a public policy decision. In my opinion, the famous quote from Thomas Sowell applies: “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.”
If public health officials and the Canadian politicomedia establishment were so assured in the nearly self-evident net benefit of lockdowns, they should welcome the chance to present their evidence in court at the earliest opportunity. As I wrote below, I haven’t reviewed the literature on this subject myself and therefore don’t have an opinion on the effectiveness or net benefit of lockdowns at this time. My suspicion is that their proven ability to limit hospitalizations and ICU admissions is much, much murkier than we are being led to believe. I have already opined above that I find their plausible harms to be systematically minimized or ignored.
At the end of the day, I think it would be pretty messy for Dr. Hinshaw to be cross-examined by Mr. Carpay and that a large percentage of Canadians would rather just stay inside and not see the sausage being made.
Glad to hear you are diving into your faith! I am familiar with Pageau's videos only, but I do believe (as I hope most thinking Christians do) that the Christian faith makes the most sense of the world. If we don't believe this, what's the point in sticking around the Church?
Just as a last thought on the lockdowns. My perspective is a little different beceause of my context, I think. Aside from the initial lockdown in March 2020, we've had only a couple of weeks of heavy restrictions here. They worked efficiently to get cases down, and otherwise for the rest of the year, everything has been open and manageable. Aside from wearing masks indoors, and keeping large gatherings distanced, everything is moving full-speed ahead. I recognize in other provinces the lockdowns have not been in concert with travel restrictions, and I can see why this can be frustrating and ineffective.
I should add that I can see the appeal of the latter. Continuing with the status quo allows one to feel that we are being led by sensible people who make decisions based on science and that one can feel a vague sense of moral superiority for all their sacrifices over the last year, especially when compared to those silly jurisdictions that are reopening fully or never really closed. The alternative (and I’m not saying this is the case, just that it is hypothetically possible) would be that our leaders who are still advocating for lockdowns are either incompetent and/or compromised, that the science was either never there or has changed under our feet (not uncommon in a field that ostensibly seeks to advance knowledge) and that ultimately the policy action underlying all of the closed school, the disruptions to civic life, the cancelled personal celebrations and milestones, the put off vacations, the sitting and staring at the same damn screen while stuck in a 450sq ft condo by yourself or a somewhat larger home with family members crawling all over each other, the moral badness felt whenever one acquiesces to a previously recognized fundamental human need thereby skirting or breaking the new laws, the seeing your kids dejected and quickly losing their newly acquired social skills, the teens and twenty somethings stuck in a purgatory of therapeutic stasis, almost like they are trying to build the beginnings of an adult life while at the bottom of a tub of Vaseline, all of it, has been either futile or has actively contributed to more harm than good. The end scene in “No Country For Old Men” comes to mind. And who wants to be that guy?
"the people who don’t yet realize they have tumours that are festering away, undiagnosed"...that may be due to the fact that hospitals are under pressure from COVID, meaning that restricting assembly is more important than ever to stop the spread that's resulting in overburdened health systems. No offence, but Coates has no wisdom on this file to offer. A theological armchair quarterback if ever there was one. Easy to criticize a giant, complex societal response to a moving-target pandemic when it inconveniences you somewhat. The children? Without restrictions, hospitals would have broken down completely, meaning no help for them in emergencies. Come on.
What primary literature have you seen that demonstrates that restricting assembly limits COVID-hospitalizations? Can you share it?
I never argued that Coates has wisdom to offer regarding public health policy.
I did not criticize a provincial or federal COVID response.
You don’t know where I live or how COVID restrictions have affected me.
Your final point is also contingent on there being a causal relationship between societal restrictions and hospital capacities. Do you know any children? You seem to be suggesting that the paramount measure of their population health is their access to acute hospital services. Is this your argument? Could you be more specific or provide an example?
There are obviously no studies connecting restricted church services to lessened transmission levels that in turn lessen burdens on hospitals. Who would undertake such a study? It's not necessary because there is extensive evidence piled up everywhere that mass gatherings spread COVID quite readily. I think you know this. There is news coverage everywhere online showing how Ontario hospitals are groaning right now, and that is WITH many restrictions in place. I do not disagree with you that restrictions have caused problems for children, but that is a disingenuous argument coming from Coates or his supporters. He is only fighting an old church battle against secular law, through the COVID issue, and is also inspired by far right wing suspicion of government. The two things are of a piece and should be argued out in the open, not through a public health emergency.
I’m also disappointed not to hear from Reverend Hartin in this comment thread. The Line editors have written numerous times about the quality of commentary that this newsletter fosters, and several contributors have engaged in followup discussions for their pieces, including, recently, Dr. Strauss, who has somehow found time within the last year to be an ICU Doc in the middle of a global pandemic, a published lockdown contrarian and public figure since at least April 2020, a newly minted PhD student at UofT, and an attempted candidate for the CPC nomination for Kitchener-Conestoga.
I should have been more specific. What I’m interested in is whether or not you can point me toward primary literature articles that show that lockdowns in general reduce COVID-related hospitalization and/or ICU admissions.
I think, T. Jane, consciously or not, this is not a good faith discussion on your part. Your comments follow the pattern of a certain kind of right-wing political media strategy that emerged during Trump. To advance political agendas under the guise of earnest concern, the idea is to challenge all manner of majority and research-substantiated scientific opinions online via demands aimed at laypersons to link out to endless reams of studies or be forced to concede that, well, denialists/skeptics/conspiracy theorists know better. Except that they don't, because with lockdowns, vaccines, climate change, etc., they are ignoring the vast and highly differentiated science and policy networks (involving countless scientific and medical experts) THE WORLD OVER that all come to highly similar conclusions. This alt-right strategy trades in non-expert opinions and armchair analyses and succeeds in shaking some people's faith in expert opinion and majority viewpoints. This is how we get conspiracy theories, anti-vaxxers, etc.--find the occasional outlier opinion and try to get traction for it. Proof of your disingenuousness lies in the fact that you could easily survey the scientific literature yourself but you are here asking others for it instead, and, not coincidentally, stumping for Strauss, who is working the exact same communications approach to--surprise, surprise--get elected by tilting at socialist proto-authoritarian forces that, well, just don't exist. Sorry, but the virus transmits easily in crowds of unmasked persons, this is a simple health emergency(the likes of which the world has seen many times), and alt-right rebel nay saying is a political maneuver the practitioners of which are not being straight with the people they inspire to lash out at the 'sheeples.' Hospitals are filling up, oxygen is running low, and you're online asking for proof that crowds of unmasked persons contribute to more infections and hence more hospital stays? You can find that proof through databases in your nearest university library.
That’s an interesting premise. Let’s leave my character aside for a moment. How do propose to differentiate between an engaged science-literate citizen who is familiar with Thomas Kuhn’s work on the inertia and blind spots of scientific paradigms as well as the at times perverse incentives within the academic community to advance a hegemonic narrative rather than adapt to the data and who is interested in learning from his/her fellow citizens in a discussion forum versus an alt-right skeptic/conspiracy theorist who is de facto wrong? Is there any point at which the voting public should question science and policy networks? Isn’t the very premise of firm scientific consensus somewhat paradoxical and shakes in that the point of science is supposed to be to continually change while evaluating competing hypotheses?
It would seem that Reverend Hartin disagrees with your characterization of my contribution to the discussion based on him calling it “thoughtful”, saying that he, overall, agrees with me, and offering for me to continue the conversation with him directly by personal email.
I will return your unsolicited advice on the broader nature of your contributions. You have spent considerably more energy here disparaging the characters and/or imagined motives of people who disagree with you than arguing with their ideas or justifying your own.
Our Constitutional rights include these fundamental freedoms all of which touch on religious practice.
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
However, the Canadian Constitution, unlike its American counterpart, allows these freedoms to be abridged, essentially when a legislature decides it is in the public interest to do so. The legislatures are very limited in their abridging powers, but it is very likely that a court of this Country will say that the pandemic restrictions are reasonable. So good luck to those who challenge the restrictions on legal grounds.
By the measures imposed on us, no one as lost their right to hold in their conscience such beliefs as they wish including a specifically "religious" belief. No one has lost the ability to communicate with others about those beliefs except from the pulpit before a congregation, or from one congregant to another.
The only impingement is on assembly and association in a church or hall. Online meetings are not prohibited. So, we are down to a very narrow, temporary loss of a "freedom" that is not a necessary element of religious belief.
Those who are aggrieved by the closure of a church ought to remember this part of the Lord's Prayer:
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
It is tempting to promote the cause of church services - but it is better not to give into the temptation, not just because it is against the law, but because the prohibition is meant to deliver us from the evil of the virus.
Perhaps you have your own definition of "inalienable," but the word is normally used to describe something that can't be taken away from its possessor. Then you go on to describe a circumstance in which you think an "inalienable" human freedom can and should be taken away.
The model you're laying out isn't one of inalienable rights, but of a kind of borrowed rights, with citizens free to exercise their rights in good times but expected to surrender them when their betters wish it. Rights under such a system aren't rights at all, particularly in our fallen world in which we can expect politicians to act from cynical motives as often (more often?) than they do from good faith motives.
If you don't like "inalienable" go with "fundamental" or "inherent" or something else. My point is that these are basic "givens" as to what it means to be human. They ought never to be taken away, but it is prudent in some extreme cases to suspend them for the common good, and to protect other goods that are further up the hierarchy of values. So for instance, the freedom to gather might be put on hold for a time in order to preserve lives.
I don't think that health officials and government members who heed their advice imagine themselves as your 'betters.' That's pretty cynical. Both groups are miserable over this crisis and likely wish they didn't have to deal with it. Don;t imagine them as a righteous, secular brigade waving away rights on a whim. It's simply the assembly piece, my goodness, nothing else has been compromised one bit. Restrictions on assembly past the crisis? Wouldn't make it past courts/the charter or the court of public opinion for even a second. Let's not trade too much in abstract talk of rights. The situation on the ground is not a threat to religion in Canada. At all.
Your essay implies that AHS has not yet provided the public with a “compelling, transparent, and evidenced-based rationale for the current restrictions.” I agree. Now, after 13 month of said “temporary” restrictions and a press that is prostrate, what on heaven or earth makes you think they would freely provide them now?
One could just as easily argue that Pastor Coates is standing up for the truly vulnerable. The people who have had their plights dismissed by canned talking points and pejorative eye rolls made by government officials and the mainstream press for a year and counting: overdose victims and their families; the teens who have developed eating disorders at unprecedented rates; the children who have had their educational and social development halted; the people who don’t yet realize they have tumours that are festering away, undiagnosed. Who speaks for them?
Pastor Coates has demonstrated the courage to attempt to activate* the court system whose job it is to adjudicate exactly the kinds of questions that you raised toward the end of your piece, Reverend. If you were truly interested in a detailed analysis of those points, you should celebrate their airing in court. Nevertheless, it would seem that Dr. Hinshaw is more sheepish about presenting the medical evidenced than you’d hoped*.
* https://www.jccf.ca/court-permits-government-to-avoid-producing-dr-hinshaws-evidence-on-lockdowns-at-may-3-trial-of-pastor-james-coates/
(Granted, this link is from the legal body representing Pastor Coates; however, I could not find another press release describing the procedural delay.)
Just getting caught up on the comments.
Thanks for the thoughtful response - if you want to catch me directly, you can shoot me an email at colehartin(at)gmail(dot)com.
I think I hear where you're coming from - that the Alberta Public Health perhaps should be more forthright with their evidence. And I agree that a trial will make this happen. But, on the other hand, I mean, other than boarder restrictions, vaccines, etc., limiting large gatherings help stop the spread of COVID 19 where there are community tranmissions. That this has gone on far longer than anyone has hoped means that the change in behaviour has to follow suit, unfortunately. It's not a great situation for anyone, really. Certainly, there are other unintended negative impacts, and these need to be weighed with the good of preserving life.
I guess, overall, I agree with you. If Pastor Coates wants to grandstand, he might has well see it through in court.
Thank you for your response, Reverend. I appreciate your thoughtful reply. It’s interesting, I have been a church-goer for most of my adult life, but this year pushed me deeper into Christianity than ever. I’ve found that there is nothing like being told what you must believe to help you realize it’s time to learn more about what you actually do. It’s been fascinating to learn about the richness and insight of the Trinity, God’s Covenants, what Jesus’ decision to die on the Cross and his resurrection actually mean. Have you heard of Jonathan Pageau? I agree with him; I’ve come to see Christianity as actually the most accurate way to understand man and the universe.
As a completely non-legal layperson, I would tend to agree with Vian’s take that the Canadian courts are unlikely to overturn the significant majority of these measures. I have reviewed the scientific literature on the fatality of COVID-19 in March-April 2020 (when we were being told that 150,000 people would die if Ontario didn’t lockdown), the accuracy of PCR testing, and the efficacy of the vaccines, and in each case the medical literature has been very substantially different and filled with much more uncertainty than what is being shared by politicians, public health officials, and the mainstream press. Other democratic jurisdictions to the right of us (i.e. Florida) and to the left of us (i.e. Sweden) have either refused to implement or have almost entirely scaled back the types of restrictions that have become banal and indefinite for most Canadians. Thousands and thousands of physicians and epidemiologists around the world have gone on the public record to say that these measures are either ineffective and/or cause more harm than good. Lockdowns are, at the end of the day, nothing more than a public policy decision. In my opinion, the famous quote from Thomas Sowell applies: “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.”
If public health officials and the Canadian politicomedia establishment were so assured in the nearly self-evident net benefit of lockdowns, they should welcome the chance to present their evidence in court at the earliest opportunity. As I wrote below, I haven’t reviewed the literature on this subject myself and therefore don’t have an opinion on the effectiveness or net benefit of lockdowns at this time. My suspicion is that their proven ability to limit hospitalizations and ICU admissions is much, much murkier than we are being led to believe. I have already opined above that I find their plausible harms to be systematically minimized or ignored.
At the end of the day, I think it would be pretty messy for Dr. Hinshaw to be cross-examined by Mr. Carpay and that a large percentage of Canadians would rather just stay inside and not see the sausage being made.
Glad to hear you are diving into your faith! I am familiar with Pageau's videos only, but I do believe (as I hope most thinking Christians do) that the Christian faith makes the most sense of the world. If we don't believe this, what's the point in sticking around the Church?
Just as a last thought on the lockdowns. My perspective is a little different beceause of my context, I think. Aside from the initial lockdown in March 2020, we've had only a couple of weeks of heavy restrictions here. They worked efficiently to get cases down, and otherwise for the rest of the year, everything has been open and manageable. Aside from wearing masks indoors, and keeping large gatherings distanced, everything is moving full-speed ahead. I recognize in other provinces the lockdowns have not been in concert with travel restrictions, and I can see why this can be frustrating and ineffective.
I should add that I can see the appeal of the latter. Continuing with the status quo allows one to feel that we are being led by sensible people who make decisions based on science and that one can feel a vague sense of moral superiority for all their sacrifices over the last year, especially when compared to those silly jurisdictions that are reopening fully or never really closed. The alternative (and I’m not saying this is the case, just that it is hypothetically possible) would be that our leaders who are still advocating for lockdowns are either incompetent and/or compromised, that the science was either never there or has changed under our feet (not uncommon in a field that ostensibly seeks to advance knowledge) and that ultimately the policy action underlying all of the closed school, the disruptions to civic life, the cancelled personal celebrations and milestones, the put off vacations, the sitting and staring at the same damn screen while stuck in a 450sq ft condo by yourself or a somewhat larger home with family members crawling all over each other, the moral badness felt whenever one acquiesces to a previously recognized fundamental human need thereby skirting or breaking the new laws, the seeing your kids dejected and quickly losing their newly acquired social skills, the teens and twenty somethings stuck in a purgatory of therapeutic stasis, almost like they are trying to build the beginnings of an adult life while at the bottom of a tub of Vaseline, all of it, has been either futile or has actively contributed to more harm than good. The end scene in “No Country For Old Men” comes to mind. And who wants to be that guy?
"the people who don’t yet realize they have tumours that are festering away, undiagnosed"...that may be due to the fact that hospitals are under pressure from COVID, meaning that restricting assembly is more important than ever to stop the spread that's resulting in overburdened health systems. No offence, but Coates has no wisdom on this file to offer. A theological armchair quarterback if ever there was one. Easy to criticize a giant, complex societal response to a moving-target pandemic when it inconveniences you somewhat. The children? Without restrictions, hospitals would have broken down completely, meaning no help for them in emergencies. Come on.
What primary literature have you seen that demonstrates that restricting assembly limits COVID-hospitalizations? Can you share it?
I never argued that Coates has wisdom to offer regarding public health policy.
I did not criticize a provincial or federal COVID response.
You don’t know where I live or how COVID restrictions have affected me.
Your final point is also contingent on there being a causal relationship between societal restrictions and hospital capacities. Do you know any children? You seem to be suggesting that the paramount measure of their population health is their access to acute hospital services. Is this your argument? Could you be more specific or provide an example?
There are obviously no studies connecting restricted church services to lessened transmission levels that in turn lessen burdens on hospitals. Who would undertake such a study? It's not necessary because there is extensive evidence piled up everywhere that mass gatherings spread COVID quite readily. I think you know this. There is news coverage everywhere online showing how Ontario hospitals are groaning right now, and that is WITH many restrictions in place. I do not disagree with you that restrictions have caused problems for children, but that is a disingenuous argument coming from Coates or his supporters. He is only fighting an old church battle against secular law, through the COVID issue, and is also inspired by far right wing suspicion of government. The two things are of a piece and should be argued out in the open, not through a public health emergency.
I’m also disappointed not to hear from Reverend Hartin in this comment thread. The Line editors have written numerous times about the quality of commentary that this newsletter fosters, and several contributors have engaged in followup discussions for their pieces, including, recently, Dr. Strauss, who has somehow found time within the last year to be an ICU Doc in the middle of a global pandemic, a published lockdown contrarian and public figure since at least April 2020, a newly minted PhD student at UofT, and an attempted candidate for the CPC nomination for Kitchener-Conestoga.
I should have been more specific. What I’m interested in is whether or not you can point me toward primary literature articles that show that lockdowns in general reduce COVID-related hospitalization and/or ICU admissions.
I think, T. Jane, consciously or not, this is not a good faith discussion on your part. Your comments follow the pattern of a certain kind of right-wing political media strategy that emerged during Trump. To advance political agendas under the guise of earnest concern, the idea is to challenge all manner of majority and research-substantiated scientific opinions online via demands aimed at laypersons to link out to endless reams of studies or be forced to concede that, well, denialists/skeptics/conspiracy theorists know better. Except that they don't, because with lockdowns, vaccines, climate change, etc., they are ignoring the vast and highly differentiated science and policy networks (involving countless scientific and medical experts) THE WORLD OVER that all come to highly similar conclusions. This alt-right strategy trades in non-expert opinions and armchair analyses and succeeds in shaking some people's faith in expert opinion and majority viewpoints. This is how we get conspiracy theories, anti-vaxxers, etc.--find the occasional outlier opinion and try to get traction for it. Proof of your disingenuousness lies in the fact that you could easily survey the scientific literature yourself but you are here asking others for it instead, and, not coincidentally, stumping for Strauss, who is working the exact same communications approach to--surprise, surprise--get elected by tilting at socialist proto-authoritarian forces that, well, just don't exist. Sorry, but the virus transmits easily in crowds of unmasked persons, this is a simple health emergency(the likes of which the world has seen many times), and alt-right rebel nay saying is a political maneuver the practitioners of which are not being straight with the people they inspire to lash out at the 'sheeples.' Hospitals are filling up, oxygen is running low, and you're online asking for proof that crowds of unmasked persons contribute to more infections and hence more hospital stays? You can find that proof through databases in your nearest university library.
That’s an interesting premise. Let’s leave my character aside for a moment. How do propose to differentiate between an engaged science-literate citizen who is familiar with Thomas Kuhn’s work on the inertia and blind spots of scientific paradigms as well as the at times perverse incentives within the academic community to advance a hegemonic narrative rather than adapt to the data and who is interested in learning from his/her fellow citizens in a discussion forum versus an alt-right skeptic/conspiracy theorist who is de facto wrong? Is there any point at which the voting public should question science and policy networks? Isn’t the very premise of firm scientific consensus somewhat paradoxical and shakes in that the point of science is supposed to be to continually change while evaluating competing hypotheses?
It would seem that Reverend Hartin disagrees with your characterization of my contribution to the discussion based on him calling it “thoughtful”, saying that he, overall, agrees with me, and offering for me to continue the conversation with him directly by personal email.
I will return your unsolicited advice on the broader nature of your contributions. You have spent considerably more energy here disparaging the characters and/or imagined motives of people who disagree with you than arguing with their ideas or justifying your own.