The free market approach requires antitrust. It's disingenuous to defer to free market rules when we have big government and big tech so deeply entrenched and largely unchecked.
Apparently, they usually bring police with them, and they are often called to the scene by police. Adding a trained counselor for deescalation sounds nice, but it may simply be an enhancement not an alternative. https://www.streetroots.org/news/2019/05/03/portland-mental-...
You heard or remember the story wrong. There wasn't a bleach couple. That was a form of chloroquine as an ingredient in fish tank cleaner. In some media, it was equated to (hydroxy)choloroquine as a medicinal drug even though this pharmaceutical drug has a high safety rating. Also, I don't think anyone went to prison even though it's assumed the engineer husband would have not knowingly drank poison. The wife also ingested some, but she survived.
In any case, the media can't pretend they rely on arbiters of truth because there is bias all around. Trump's statements on disinfectants were not as incendiary as some people made them out to be. Disinfectants can sometimes be used in the lungs or body, but this is a question for the medical field. The media speculated about poison control calls surging after Trump's statements, but any small uptick seemed to already be present since people have resorted to rigorous use of disinfectants in the home going all the way back to March. Finally, with the focus on lockdowns and isolation, we've actually somewhat missed the point of the DHS briefing on disinfectants and UV decontamination. We were supposed to be looking for simple innovations that made going to places like the grocery store safer and more manageable, but I haven't seen much progress in this area.
CFR is a tentative metric. IFR is finalized at the end of a pandemic, and it was always suspected it could be between 0.1% and 0.41%. The WHO estimated 750,000,000 have had the virus. Reexamine your numbers. You don't seem to understand that Fauci was made infamous for suggesting a 3.4% mortality rate. That opened the door for economic-minded people like Scott Atlas to ask for a reality check.
It's incredible that you are taking the stance that the non-pharmaceutical interventions were not strict enough. Lockdowns were never a fully-vetted strategy since their interesting origins in 2006 under the Bush admin. They were likely to do untold harm because of this failing. Epidemiologists at large did not endorse any such policy. A UK official already admitted they went with the idea because they were in a panic. Consider this: you kind of sound like the dad that insists his daughter will never date because she will never be allowed to leave the house. You've outsmarted all those stupid and selfish teen boys.
One problem is that tenure and standing for established scientists no longer afford any of the expected protections. James Watson was not discredited but promptly fired and "disgraced" for stating a well-supported scientific finding in abrupt layman's terms for an interview. The minds of cancel culture would probably say they gave this dinosaur enough chances to fade away, but he wouldn't. If they do want scientists to be free to investigate the genetic and other bases of IQ further in order to find better answers, then it seems like they want scientists to first find a way to talk about it publicly without specifying the categories or where members of a category tend to fall on the scale.
There is a chilling effect on various lines of inquiry. For now, you can claim the information is out there, but any further writings could become more esoteric or limited. In the case of IQ, I don't think certain people want scientific answers as to why. They would rather assume IQ is highly malleable while they run social and economic experiments to find ways to equalize it and other factors that predict success.
In the case of the FBI claiming they needed Apple's help to retrieve encrypted data from an iPhone, it's reasonable to suspect that it was simply a ploy to pressure Apple into making concessions in the face of public pressure. A third party firm was quick to assist the FBI, but I doubt the technique used to bypass Apple's security on the iPhone was entirely novel. I would guess the firm was surprised the government didn't have enough resources to overcome the obstacle themselves long before anyone else. The San Bernardino shooting was a low stakes case of terrorism that may have been classified as a normal workplace shooting, and the FBI didn't have to make haste nor use all of the tools at their disposal. At the same time, the FBI's request to Apple can be considered legitimate after some hand waving because most of the FBI was probably told that it was technically impossible to crack into an iPhone because the necessary tool is classified and kept in reserve.
Also, I don't think any number of people believing to any extent that a corporation may have been compromised removes an important incentive for that corporation to maintain its integrity. For a security-conscious company, reputation and trust don't go that far so it would be safer to assume that Apple can be or has been compromised maybe even without their knowledge. That company would have to look after its own security and use custom protocols / devices. If it was forced to trust Apple, it would have to find an ingenious way to ensure that was not at all in the interest of Apple to betray them.