I'd love to have a public health leadership that is trustworthy, but it would be foolish to trust them if they're not. Feel free to point to anyone in the publ

I'd love to have a public health leadership that is trustworthy, but it would be foolish to trust them if they're not. Feel free to point to anyone in the public health leadership who has acknowledged that things might not work as predicted or when they got it wrong. Remember "15 days to flatten the curve?" Then there's the mask flip-flop (early on, health officials said that ordinary people didn't need masks, possibly because they were trying to avoid hoarding that might interfere with having enough for medical professionals) and they're still overstating the value of typical masks. Along the same lines is the PHS response to the :Barrington Declaration". It wasn't "hey, what is their data and how did they arrive at their conclusions". It was "How do we discredit those people." Maybe they were wrong, maybe they were correct, but anyone who says that they're wrong because of who they are is doing politics, not science. Moreover, arguing that they must be evil and discredited because of their conclusion is even worse. And then there's ever popular "outdoor protests that we like are safe but the ones that we don't like will kill everyone, and that's good because those are bad people".