[amscanne]

You don't think that the current crop of vaccine-skeptics are mostly well-intentioned and that the movement will ultimately fade-away decades down the line?

It seems identical to me: soft corruption and bad science shaping government policy. Annoying and bad, but also hopefully temporary (but may do damage in the meantime). I agree that it happens with all governments. Has everyone forgotten the sea of bad science that was COVID policy? Thank god they arrested that paddle-boarder!

[DiogenesKynikos]

Covid policy was bad mostly because it was driven by economic interests, not because of "bad science."

The only major scientific lapses I can think of in the US were the initial insistence that masks don't work and that the virus isn't airborne. The mask issue was influenced by the fact that they wanted to conserve masks for healthcare workers. I strongly suspect the airborne issue was heavily influenced by no one wanting to deal with the consequences: that stronger measures would be needed to reduce the spread of the virus.

[amscanne]

Don't use scare quotes to twist what is being said.

Bad science is pretending or thinking that we know more than we do, just as much as thinking the wrong thing is true. For example, claims about the under or over-effectiveness of masks (and subsequently vaccines) is definitely bad science that erodes public confidence in scientific leaders and organizations.

And the insane vaccine mandate for *children* (not federal, but some states in order to attend school) was absolutely bad science. I'm not opposed to the vacinne, but there was most definitely no evidence to support this requirement. At best, the current science suggests an unclear risk-benefit profile, and the information at the time in no way suggested a profile that justified a full-on mandate. This violated basic medical and ethical principles.

[bathtub365]

Did we live through the same period? Masks became the most politicized inanimate object next to guns.

[viraptor]

> You don't think that the current crop of vaccine-skeptics are mostly well-intentioned

Well intentioned but wrong is only when you have incomplete information. Once your theory has been disproven multiple times and you still ignore it, that's not well intentioned anymore. That's just lying to yourself and others at that point.

[frumplestlatz]

Humanity is messy. There are very many things that I think have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but are still, somehow, up for debate.

The answer can’t be absolutism in any direction. No one, no group, and no ideology has a monopoly on truth.

No system or ideology is perfectly correct — or even reliably correct in the long run, if you make the error of building an ideology around it that assumes it will be correct. You create the conditions of its own fallibility.

The next government will make stupid decisions, be wrong, and promote falsehoods. We probably won’t even know all of them at the time.

They’ll be both corrupt and good intentioned, depending on the subject, who is involved, and why.

This current government at least admits the possibility of debate. That’s a fair sight better than most of what I’ve seen over the last 10 years from those who think they have a monopoly on truth and science.

[venturecruelty]

"Your Honor, I really meant well when I aimed the gun and pulled the trigger! Sure, everyone told me it would go off and kill someone, but can't you see that my intentions were pure?"

[amscanne]

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here, but obviously intent matters a lot for the purposes of crime, e.g. if you believed your life was in imminent danger and shot someone, you may not be guilty of murder.

You seem to be saying that people are indeed malicious and just lying about believing vaccines cause harm (for what purpose?), but I do believe they are just misinformed and have strongly-held-but-incorrect beliefs.