> We're not talking about "partial data."

You might change the subject away from partial data, but the comment I replied to _was_ talking about partial data, and my rebuttal _is_ about partial data and the judgement of whether that partial data is worth releasing based soley on how we imaging people might react to it. Have you read "The Unthinkable"?

I wouldn't trust RFK Jr. about vaccines if I didn't trust his data. But establishing a body that was in charge of disseminating data about vaccines is in high likelihood going to be taken over by RFK Jr types. Such a body shouldn't exist. Such a body would write "Turtles all the way down."

> "knowledge is good" is such a naive take. Trivial example: You only have knowledge of crimes committed by immigrants but zero knowledge of crimes committed by citizens. How is that good?

That counter-logic is so fundamentally flawed b/c it rests exclusively on the prejudgement of others and prediction of their use of the data while "I", the good thinker, can determine that it is bad for "them" to have access to this data. That is just a very bad way to think and is precisely what RFK-types do all the time.