...own conclusions. Perhaps I'm just arguing semantics here. But when I hear the word "agenda", I envision someone trying to cherrypick data to align with their pre-determined conclusion. I didn't get that impression from these two doctors. I felt like they've been "following the science" for two months to see what unfolded, and have arrived at a conclusion AFTER that journey, not before it. Now, their personal desires may happen to align with their professional conclusion, but I don't think that invalidates it.

Are they being vocal to save their hospital? Perhaps. I sensed that they are just incredibly frustrated that, in their opinion, the measures being taken are actually being detrimental to society as a whole. I don't think they manipulated the statistics to fit their desired outcome. Yes, they extrapolated small sample sizes out to the general population, but the models being used to make policy decisions extrapolate a lot more than that, and so far they have overshot the virus' impact on the healthcare system as a whole.

I'm glad that there are people brave enough to question what's going on. Even if I don't agree with absolutely everything that was said, I think it's healthy (and honestly, safer for all of us) if medical professionals are allowed to offer dissenting opinions. While YouTube is a privately owned entity and they can choose to block content as they please, I find it troubling when people with no medical background choose to censor the opinions of doctors. If all of us get into the habit of going along with the herd without any critical thinking, I think we are heading to a dangerous place.
[Post edited by MP4VT2004 at 04/29/2020 12:03AM]