The limitation of freedom of expression in terms of a pandemic deserves particular reflection as it goes far beyond ideological motivations.
The mainstream social media and much of the media have taken up a narrative about the pandemic. The suppression of points of view that contradicted them was evident since the beginning. World-renowned scientists like John Iaonnidis were ignored, insulted and even censored.
The case of Ioannidis
The prestigious Stanford researcher, with important contributions in areas such as epidemiology and clinical research, has addressed over the years, and with great impact, the issue of the lack of quality of current research and how most of it turns out to be false.
At the beginning of the pandemic in the US and Europe, he warned of the lack of reliable data for a case fatality rate of 3.4% (WHO) and of the negative consequences of interventions based on this level of alarm.
Today he already has published an estimate in the WHO itself that is around 0.23% (0.05% under 70 years old), even based on countries with higher mortality rates. If we consider the WHO estimates on the infected population, this value drops even further from 0.15% to 0.20%.
This is about 17 times lower than initially announced. Regardless of the final figure, which is still being discussed and which may take years to determine, it is already clear that his suspicions about lethality were well founded.
As for the consequences of some measures applied, they are now universally recognized and are devastating.
But these visions did not reach most people, they were simply ignored. Other voices with inferior CVs were privileged and, not infrequently, investigations were presented with a weak or poor level of evidence.
Fact-checkers and social networks
A false consensus was created based on dogmatic assumptions, many of them already denied by evidence. Absolute truths were imposed such as: “the lethality is enormous”, “no one is immune”, “the virus is not seasonal”, “schools greatly increase transmissions”, just to give a few examples.
But as there is (almost) no contradiction, we try to maintain the initial postulates as if the vast majority had not already been rejected or, at least, were not being contested by a significant part of the scientific community.
Fact-checkers, for example, are today an essential weapon for silencing uncomfortable voices that challenge the pandemic status quo. In general, they can make a lot of sense. As the name implies, they can help to confirm objective facts or with a degree of solid scientific evidence. Do vaccines cause autism? Did the politician lie when he said he never said anything?
But that’s not all they are currently serving. They also serve to suppress and disparage voices that go against their narrative. Of all the voices that exist in the scientific community, those that confirm their theses are chosen, ignoring others, with equal or greater credibility, who defend the opposite.
Denying someone when there is conflicting evidence and opinions is clearly a form of censorship and intimidation.
Messages, even if well-founded, but subjectively evaluated as minimizing the risks of the pandemic, are suppressed for the good of public health.
Messages, even if ill-founded, that objectively dramatize the risks of the disease and create a disproportionate risk perception are immune to this control.
Each one will have their opinion on which type of messages will have more risks, namely in terms of public health. But journalists, fact-checkers or any social network will not be the best to assess this. Even because, many times, this evaluation is complex and multifactorial.
The dissidents
With these totalitarian practices and with the labeling of divergent voices as “deniers” they manage to silence many who do not agree with the vision presented and with some of the measures. They succumb to social conformism and self-censorship. Often out of fear, possibly justified, of reprisals or reputational losses.
Fortunately, there are always those who are not intimidated. By character and also certainly for having (still) some independence to be able to do so.
Are these voices right at all? Certainly not. Especially because many fall into the same radicalism, stop looking at the evidence and label those who legitimately disagree with them in less sympathetic terms.
But the question is not whether they are more right or more wrong.
The point is that it is on the presentation of arguments, evidence and facts that a democratic society must be founded. It is not in obscurantism, censorship and persecution of those who do not follow the mainstream. It is not in authoritarianism, wherever it comes from.
There is a lot of contradictory evidence. Therefore, in many themes, several alternative hypotheses must be put forward and not followed by narratives, however intuitive and convenient they may be.
Only with freedom of expression can we purge “bad ideas” and misleading information. Only with freedom of expression can we confront evidence and different points of view and arrive at the best solutions.
If this contradiction does not exist, we are vulnerable to all kinds of manipulations, abuses of power and unreasonable measures in the light of science.
We must fight censorship, wherever it comes from and in what form. Whether we agree or not with what is censored.
