There is nothing acceptable about a message that ends up eroding trust in science and health authorities. Good intentions with poor outcomes hurt more than they help. We shouldn’t excuse it.
As I said clearly, a) that was a personal opinion, b) I don’t believe the message was actually presented in such absolute terms. There may have been poor science communication, which is always a problem, but that is not unusual.
There was and continues to be a huge amount of disinformation and anti-science fear spread around, but the correct information was put out there and if you weren’t getting the right information you need to change your sources.
That’s blaming the reaction instead of the cause. Exactly which sources could someone switch to for accurate information? All were bad. The political and health authorities were overcommitting the efficacy and results of the vaccine program in their communications. They were mandating a vaccine program (where they could) and pressuring for mandates (where they couldn’t mandate themselves) of a vaccine that was not doing what they said it would do. They also were actively attempting to censor information on media and social platforms including accurate information but contrary to their message. Of course the public would become skeptical and a backlash would come when the dust settled.
There is no heresy in looking back and evaluating how things were managed and hope that our authorities learn from their mistakes before God forbid any future health crisis comes our way. What we know from the last one is “Sit down, shut up, and take the medicine and don’t trust your lying eyes” doesn’t work and creates distrust. So let’s not do that again.
There is nothing acceptable about a message that ends up eroding trust in science and health authorities. Good intentions with poor outcomes hurt more than they help. We shouldn’t excuse it.