Reductio ad hitlerum. > Beda Stadler, the immunologist in question, is a highly controversial figure. As far as I can tell, he is "controversial" in the sense

Reductio ad hitlerum. > Beda Stadler, the immunologist in question, is a highly controversial figure. As far as I can tell, he is "controversial" in the sense that Penn Jilette would be considered "controversial": - in favor of GMO - critical of anti-vaxxers - critical of alternative medicine - thinks drugs should be legalized - thinks women aren't funny (probably borrowed that one from Christopher Hitchens) As for the science, he's about as credentialed as it gets. From a rationalist perspective, it would be unwise to stick to a position that one happens to have committed to politically when the facts don't support it anymore. If Donald Trump, by chance, had positioned himself as a lockdown advocate, people left off center would be calling him a dictator and protest it at every opportunity.