• Understanding the main stream media narrative in order to deconstruct it
• Understand the importance of fear to manipulate people
• Explain why the fear is exaggerated

How did we end up here?

• Build a “steel man” account (step by step) of the logical progression that lead us to where we are now

What is wrong with were we are now?

• List the problems
• Follow the steps backwards to point out the logical fallacies that lead us to where we are now
• Highlight the warning signs that were ignored or fabricated
  • Hospitals getting paid $50,000 per COVID patient
  • Incentives in all the wrong places
  • VAERS
• Dismantle all the false claims and provide the truthful claims

We need to offer an alternate point of view.

(Biggest problem in my mind is the fearmongering around the death rates. Establishing R0, How dangerous is COVID really? by age groups, underlying health conditions.

Discuss early treatment, vaccine development, alternative strategies. Many alternative strategies are not)

• What is science?
• Who are the main actors?
• Who would profit the most from any one decision, from lockdowns to using a single solution approach.
• Alternative strategies to contain the virus
• Alternative treatments
  • Prophylaxis

Meta topics:

• Learning proper argumentation and identifying logical fallacies
  • Plenty of examples to elaborate on here
    • Ad hominem
    • Ad populum
    • Slippery slope
    • Straw man
    • Appeal to emotions
    • Appeal to (false) science
  • Falsification
    • Sweden approach
    • Ivermectin: Uttar Pradesh, African countries
    • Demanding Randomized, double blind, peer reviewed articles to establish credibility, when Pfizer violated ALL these standards and published misleading results for a variant that no longer exists.
    • How is it possible to develop and conduct a trial on a brand new vaccine technology in record time and publish the results, but we still haven't been able to do establish the benefits of drugs (IVM or HCQ) that have been around for decades and have a well know risk profile? How does that make any sense?

A common thread that runs through many of these topics is the battle or tension that exists between thoughtfulness and emotion.

How proper rules of argumentation have been consistently violated in order to override a considered and reasoned response.

No accountability, nor agreements on the feedback rules and mechanisms that should be followed were established upfront. (This needs to be done in future pandemics)

Hypotheses, postulates, theories and thresholds should be defined and recorded upfront. Theories should be revised and debated in public forums as new observations become available, if they do not meet the recorded expectations.

There does not need to be consensus. In fact the less consensus the better. Experts should be encouraged to disagree, but their reasoning and expectations should be recorded and regularly compared to reality. Those that are able to best predict outcomes should be listened to more.

Conflict of interests.

No agreement on the most important measure to keep track of. Daily cases was a really bad metric.

Testing everyone, even those that where asymptomatic was a bad strategy.

Transparency and honesty on how the data is reported. Media wants to sensationalize everything.