In which our opponents get to make their case.
If one starts with one’s conclusion as an assumption, say: “We know lockdowns work… therefore there would have been many more cases and deaths without lockdowns, so if cases rise we have to lock down harder”, a person (or a country) could get themselves in quite the pickle.
An intelligent contrarian asks themselves “What if I’m wrong”? on a regular, almost daily basis. In the spirit of such we ask ourselves: A large chunk of the world seems to be against us when we say that there is little point in vaccinating most healthy people under 50, or that lockdowns, travel restrictions and dividing the nation up into essential and non essential humans seems rather, well, bloody vicious and stupid, but…what if they’re right and I’m wrong? What if there’s something I’m not seeing?
What if we’ve made some mistake, if somewhere in our logic we used a conclusion as an assumption to kick the whole process off? What if, furthermore, because of our biases we were blind as to what those assumptions were?
Well then, we would rely upon our opponents in debate to point out where that error was. So go to it. Please tell me where I’m wrong. Only do so without regurgitating the mainstream bilge we’re all inundated with on a daily basis. This is the place to make intelligent arguments in favour of the mainstream view on covid.