Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
I see the root cause of all this debate as a failure in scientific communication.<p>When it comes to complex scientific decisions with significant impacts on the public, nuanced and detailed justifications are required. Instead, we often get simple declarations written by PR departments at juvenile reading level. This spawns chaotic and poorly conducted debate in all walks of life.<p>What is required is a robust and transparent framework for honest analyses of topics. 
For example, if the CDC has a specific recommendation, They should provide an outline of the arguments, counter-arguments, assumptions, and supporting data for each part.<p>It seems that the status quo is to completely ignore any arguments against a given recommendation. This suffocates any honest discussion in the crib. It also suggests to some that the justifications are not robust enough to survive the light of day. If you cant show your work, people will be skeptical that you did it all.<p>This is applicable to any science based public policy, but especially obvious to covid policy.