I gave my argument. If you want to keep believing "Trust the Science" then go ahead. The Phuks BBQ will have a vaccinated section for my safety, not for yours.
I'm just a random person on the internet so you'll take what I have to say with a grain of salt, but I saw so many mistakes these experts were making at the time. So take it from my perspective and consider what you'd think "experts" people are doing if you saw things these ways:
- Back when the WHO was denying that it was airborne, I knew it likely was based on the contagiousness of it and various reports around the world about how it was spread.
- ditto for when the WHO experts were declaring "no evidence" of human-to-human transmissions. Weasel words like that may be epistomologically and technically correct, but they're useless for public policy and fail to consider the harm caused to their reputation, public trust, and consequences if it turns out to be airborne (as it did)
- I knew Trump's travel ban on China was a good idea even before he did it, but the experts at the time were decrying it as xenophobic. The criticism from the health community was not driven by evidence and basic scientific reasoning about disease transmission (their supposed are of expertise) but rather ideology.
- I knew masks were probably worthwhile (or at least did no harm so they should be encouraged) when Faucci and company were telling us no reason to wear a mask while simultaneously complaining about a lack of PPE for first responders. I knew it was a lie for obvious reasons and confirmed by Faucci himself later. This is like the WHO case above, so while that one was maybe a case of poor public communication/leadership, this was is probably a case of the experts lying to your face when they find it convenient. The antimasker movement and other backlash is directly attributable to this clear fact of horrible leadership from the experts
- I knew the lockdowns were bad policy; interestingly the "experts" are bipolar on this with evidence in scholarly journals published before 2019 against lockdowns but then for some weird reasons they were adopted all over the place in 2020 despite what the science up to that time said. Like masks, there are now dozens (hundreds?) of papers being published all over the place claiming all kinds of contradictory results, but the main point is the experts failed 100% to account to human psychology in and economic consequences in these policies. Throw in standard corporate corruption and lobbying (exemptions for corporations while tiny businesses get fucked) and it's clear the experts designed nothing in this around data and science outside of the tautological "can't have transmission if the business is shutdown"
- I knew the deaths and infections numbers trotted out by experts in their daily briefings were full of shit because there was never anywhere close to enough tests and many infected have essentially zero symptoms. This made all their hemming and hawing look so ridiculous when it was obvious case numbers were likely 10x higher and their IFR and CFR numbers were completely junk with massive error base since we never (and still don't) have a clue what the denominator should be.
On and on. Why was I able to get these predictions right while the experts were wrong? My guess is because they are so detached from reality of normal day to day people and how they will behave. Health experts are supposed to take that kind of thing into account when formulating policy for the real world, but it's hard when you're at CDC headquarters living in the suburbs in a $1m house and talking with similar people to empathize and understand how somebody working in retail in Iowa or a college student in Mississippi is going to react to whatever ill-conceived policy you recommend.
They should have told the truth at every step of the way because public trust is incredibly easy to erode. But they think they know better than everyone else and can control how people should act. It is their ego and arrogance that has produced and amplified both the disastrous response to covid and the public's trust in them.
I'll spare you my thoughts on vaccines and predictions about what will happen there unless you're interested.
Why was I able to get these predictions right while the experts were wrong?
probably for a multitude of reasons but probably not many of the ones your thinking. perhaps it was because it was a fluid situation with a lot of moving pieces they were trying to juggle. nobody bats 1.000, especially on something so enormous. expecting perfection is ridiculous.
as for vaccinnes, i'd love to hear what side effects you expect to magically pop up so many months into trials.
I'm no expert, but it's pretty easy to find that Moderna (Modern RNA) has never passed enough clinical trials to get any product approved by the FDA. In fact they completely abandoned their initial purpose, which was gene therapy as cancer treatment. They repurposed to make vaccines because nothing passed clinical trials. Take a wild guess, has anything Moderna produced been FDA approved or passed clinical trials?
Ok jobes is just a retard conspiracy guy