Quote:
Originally Posted by 4691mls
it seems like instead of continuing to follow the experts as more has been learned about Covid, many people reacted by not believing anything else experts said.
|
The issue is, that the "experts" proved that they are NOT experts. So why would people believe and follow them after that?
A good example is Fauci. He is the face of experts, isn't he? He of course went through the "no mask, followed by mask, followed by double mask" fiasco. It is fine to change your mind over time as new information comes in. many call that flip-flopping, but really it is learning and changing.
[edit]
It appears that I may be in error on the paragraph below. I fell into the same trap that I am complaining about - trusting something that I read online that was credibly presented. My mistake. Lesson learned, "trust nothing you see online".
However, in the case of Fauci, he wrote a medical paper specifically on the 1918 pandemic and the use of masks. His conclusion was that it was not the virus that caused the most deaths, it was pneumonia brought on my wearing of masks! Now, when he wrote that paper, there was no urgent situation going one, no pressure to come to one conclusion or the other. You would assume that Fauci heavily researched his work before publishing.
[/edit]
So even though he is thought of as "an expert", just how expert is he really? He didn't just change his opinions and recommendations in the heat of battle with covid raging, he changed them after careful research historically.
This is why people are prone to distrust "the experts" now. And it is obvious why this has happened. But you are right ... in the case where "an expert" does come up with a good recommendation, there is now a heavy burden of proof for them to prove they are competent in the first place. This is not a good situation to be in. But it is "the experts" who brought it onto themselves.
Masks are nothing new. They've been around for over a century. They have probably been studied to death, and studied during periods where there was zero pressure to come up with a conclusion. But yet, "the experts" still managed to contradict themselves right and left and make themselves look like fools.
Then you look at vaccines in general. They've been around forever. Sure, new viruses come and go, but that doesn't mean that everything has to start over from scratch each time. So when "the experts" say "we just don't know if the vaccine will prevent you from spreading the virus to others", you kind of scratch your head. What, haven't they been observing all the other bazillion vaccines over the decades? All those seem to prevent the spread, why not this one? Sure, that has to be proven, but they should have a pretty good idea that the spread will be diminished from vaccinated people, simply based on how other vaccines have worked over the years. And no, the mRNA technology is not all that new. They've been testing and developing it for over 20 years. They've had many trials and have monitored many patients who received mRNA vaccines. So when "the experts" claim that they have no idea about side effects, no idea how long immunity might last, or if the vaccine will help prevent the spread of disease, you have to wonder what they've been doing for the last twenty years while researching it.
Of course research is still needed. But honestly, these experts don't appear to be all that expert at what they're doing right now. It is appropriate to be skeptical of their recommendations. That doesn't mean not to follow them. But it does mean to question them.