I began the article. It is quite lengthy and the beginning was messy. It’s true that I didn’t read the whole thing but it’s 1,500 words long..
Actually, it's 4,200 words, and I read the whole thing. Not a fan. Where do I start?
First, I know this wasn't your point, so I just want to say one thing about the lockdown discussion. Instead of lockdowns, he says "The traditional strategy for dealing with pandemics was to isolate the infected and protect the most vulnerable." What other pandemics are you aware of where this so-called traditional strategy was used? I've read a bit about the 1918 flu pandemic, which, like covid, killed about 675,000 Americans. There was not an official stay-at-home lockdown, but different cities did institute bans on going out in groups, in an attempt to stop transmission. "... Cities that adopted interventions early, held them in place longer and layered them together — for instance, closing schools, banning public gatherings and isolating sick residents — were more successful managing the epidemic and reducing fatalities." So there was, in fact, evidence that this approach works better than simply isolating sick patients in the hospital.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/03/upshot/coronavirus-cities-social-distancing-better-employment.htmlWith regard to "the way "dissenters" are bullied, discredited, and suppressed": The only one I'll grant you is "discredited." Yes, they were discredited, because most of their colleagues thought they were spreading misinformation. But they were still able to work and to disseminate their ideas, so they weren't "suppressed." They weren't persecuted or tormented - Having people disagree with you is not "bullying".
The question is, when is it appropriate to discredit someone? Scientists disagree with each other all the time, in the kind of back-and-forth that helps them sharpen their understanding of a problem. They go back to the lab, come up with more results, and try to create some consensus in their understanding. But in this case, the research had practical implications, and the "dissenters" were not just offering a different interpretation for theoretical consideration, but were publicizing those interpretations as if they were facts, publicizing them not only to other scientists but to the general public who often had little understanding of science, and publicizing views that could potentially lead to unhealthy behaviors. The "dissenters" weren't jailed and didn't lose their jobs, but other scientists did try to inform the public that the views of those "dissenters" were not accepted by the majority of scientists.
Poll