There are two things seriously wrong with this article. (1) It treats authorities and non-authorities as monolithic. Far from it. There were plenty of serious,

There are two things seriously wrong with this article. (1) It treats authorities and non-authorities as monolithic. Far from it. There were plenty of serious, well qualified epidemiologists who were warning of the danger, and they were right. There were even more non-serious people using their popularity in completely unrelated fields to minimize the danger, and they were wrong. Sadly there still are, most definitely including here. Yes, the people in the actual seats of US federal power got it wrong, and plenty of amateurs got it right, but it's more complicated than the "don't trust experts" narrative. (2) Sample of one. Even if it weren't for the above, and the two groups were monolithic, this is just one case where the authorities were wrong and others were right. Yes, it's a very prominent case because of the consequences, but prominence is not the same as statistical significance. Treating it so is a form of cognitive bias/error. The real lesson here is not to distrust experts or authorities. It's not to trust conspiracy theorists or people with whom we empathize more because they're in our own industry. It's to trust science itself - empirical facts and analysis applied to facts. Both experts and others can help us to interpret those facts, put them in perspective, correct common errors in analysis, but ultimately it should be the facts that rule. The reason so many authorities and non-authorities were wrong is because they rejected the scientific approach, not because of who they are.