When Claims of ‘Revisionism’ and ‘Misinformation’ are Themselves Misinformed: Implications for Policy Decision-Making

Abstract

A recent publication defined lockdown “revisionism” as “the spread of misinformation on lockdowns and other public health measures.” We used this publication to analyze the claim that questioning lockdowns or other public health interventions and mandates amounts to lockdown “revisionism” and “misinformation”. We suggest that the term ‘revisionism’, like the term ‘misinformation’ contained in its definition, were merely labels used to denigrate evidence-based contrary conclusions so as to avoid having to critically appraise the best evidence itself. We aim to describe how, by glossing over topics without fully engaging with the best evidence available, the assertions made do not withstand critical scrutiny. We suggest that, to ensure lessons are learned for the future, we must be willing to engage in rigorous and open debate – calling reasonable critical scrutiny of evidence ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’, or ‘revisionism’ is not supportive of this goal. Finally, we suggest that a main lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic is not to have an increased focus on so-called ‘misinformation’ and ‘revisionism’, but rather to re-discover the emergency management process of making decisions that ensure multidisciplinary representation, transparency, cost-benefit analyses of courses open using the best evidence available, and that protects against censorship and groupthink.