Will similarly credentialed health care “experts” show up on social media when the next pandemic strikes? They might very well be effective, for our two Southern California physicians have brought together all three variants. They are fighting against the COVID-19 experts who they believe are nothing more than liars and opportunists. Flight is also involved, for those of us who read their statement can escape to this new reality—believing that the virus is nothing more than a blip on the health care radar. And freeze is engaged when we do nothing but sit back after reading the social media post. We wait for the various Lions (competing experts) to fight it out rather than eat us—without acknowledging that these experts aren’t the real Lions. The virus is waiting in the bushes to attack us when we become more vulnerable. Our two physicians are correct in noting that COVIDF-19 is aided by our existing physical (and mental) conditions.
The story gets even more interesting and complex. The challenging perspectives these physicians offer led to their You Tube presentations being shut down by the You Tube staff. Was this decision by You Tube appropriate and justifiable? Most of us (who are not radical social libertarians) would agree that there should be screening of inaccurate or inappropriate content (such as pornography) or blatantly inaccurate information. However, should the observations made by these two physicians be considered inappropriate? Do we know that what they declared is inaccurate? What should be the policy regarding future challenging presentations regarding a pandemic?
As one might imagine, uproar about this “censorship” was widespread and passionate. Fight was soon engaged by many people. As one of those commenting on the censorship declared: “If you stomp on our freedom—that has one ending and its violence. Spoken like a true American!” At the very least, the actions taken by You Tube speak to the major challenge of establishing an open forum for the discussion of various options. What should we make of these variants on the third choice? Don’t we want a forum that welcomes the sharing of diverse perspectives regarding something as complex as a global pandemic? Do we instead wish to continue fighting against these inaccuracies? Instead of the forum do we flee from the disturbing reality (“these are quacks who will soon be ignored”)? We can always just freeze in place (“there is nothing to be done—we are helpless and ignorant consumers of misinformation”). Forums are hard to convene when the anxiety of COVID-19 compels us to fight, flight or freeze.
