There is no answer to the question “Do you trust all experts?”

It’s a yes or no question. That is factually incorrect. Pesky facts.

The arguably irreversible damage done to children and teens by the restrictions and changes to their freedoms is huge. They have suffered and continue to suffer so much. — dazed

This is bad, if there's much truth to it, but the problem is not the virus. Something really messed up with the lives of these kids that a lockdown irreversibly damages them.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

It's a yes or no question.

It's really not that hard to evaluate an expert opinion. You rely on rhetorical fumbling to pretend expert opinion is unreliable, so that you can ignore inconvenient facts.

We can rely on experts. Not on Synthesis' beliefs. And not on you.

It was my point that it is up to us to evaluate expert opinion, and here you are restating my point after accusing me of anti-intellectualism and trusting another user on some message board. Just brilliant.

It was my point that it is up to us to evaluate expert opinion, — NOS4A2

But that's not your point. That's the place you back down to when called out. What you pretend to is that we cannot trust any experts, and so all we have is our own opinion. You do this in order to ignore the facts.

And it's why you are untrustworthy.

It was my point. The only answer to my question “which expert will teach us which expert we should believe?” is ourselves.

You assumed my view and intention without evidence. Had you asked me what they were instead of levying false accusations we might be in less of a quarrel. So much for common ground.

Medical malpractice is one of the leading causes of death in the US. It’s why we get second opinions, or more. So yes, I believe it is prudent to treat expert opinion with a little skepticism.

You assumed my view and intention without evidence. — NOS4A2

The evidence is there in the history of your posts, available for anyone who cares to look. Here it is: https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/comments/4321/nos4a2

I invite all who are interested - and I doubt there are many - to take a scroll through your posting history. You don't recognise facts.

You don't recognise facts.

Name one.

Name one. — NOS4A2

No.

That's just an invitation to play your rhetorical cat-and-mouse game.

Again, I invite all who are interested to take a scroll through your posting history.

It’s an invitation to you to prove your smears. If you can assert I don’t recognize facts, surely you can name a fact I do not recognize. If I have not recognized a fact maybe I can explain why I don’t. If I wasn’t clear I can clarify. If I was wrong I will admit it. But if you will not let me defend myself, or as always, weasel away, why bother? If this is the intellectualism you’re trying to protect, then yes, consider me opposed.

If you can assert I don’t recognize facts, surely you can name a fact I do not recognize. — NOS4A2

But since you do not recognise facts, you will simply disagree with whatever I say is factual - an invitation to play tag. You've done this repeatedly; hence my invitation for folk to peruse your post history.

No, I am content to point out that you are a charlatan.

It's clear @NOS4A2 is nothing more than a tar-baby, making dirty all who interact with him. Or if you like a compressor-operated asshole. And we might remind ourselves the value of compressed air expelled from an asshole.

I would have said shit-wind-bag —blatherskite.

He does recognize facts... when they suit his political narrative, which is the only thing that ever matters to him.

Indeed, better I had said he does not respect facts. He's a bullshitter, in the true philosophical sense.

All very illuminating. But what of the OP? :chin:

It hovers in an uncomfortable space between the shallow, the callous, and the ludicrous, and has probably already received more attention than it deserves.

I, me, mine.

I have no children but can say without a doubt I would have chosen to face the risks that come with a lack of restrictions on children to protect the freedom and happiness of children. — dazed

Just one little question. If you had been lucky enough to have kids and one of them brought the local junky/drug dealer to your house, would you have been happy about it? I doubt it because it would have made a mess of your life.
Now just swap Covid for junky and see if it makes sense to you now.

Everything is so entertaining.

I wonder if we had given people a choice, how many in the over 50 group would have asked children and teens to give up their freedoms and happiness? — dazed

That's an interesting empirical question. The answer is not to be found on this forum.

I have kids. No one asked me for my thoughts on the Covid response. I say everything we have done has been to protect, not people, but healthcare institutions. Yep, all this to protect a semi-functioning system. And that is the saddest thing of all: everyone bought the line of "save the vulnerable" but really, without scratching too deep, it's "protect the healthcare system" "prevent the hospital freom getting overwhelmed". Just Crap.

Protect your kids, sacrifice FOR the future generations, not sacrifice THE future generations.

The medical community, model, corporation (whatever name you want to call it) is not trying to harm you, it is also not overly interested in helping you much either. It is very interested in appearing like it is trying very hard to help you, and everyone else, as that creates a positive image for it, increases faith in the system and ensures the system lives on. The system cares very much about the system, individuals...not so much. So yes, educating oneself is logical, having faith in your healthcare provider is good. Having blind faith in them is foolish.

I don't recall anyone arguing for blind faith in their healthcare provider.