Hmm - by and large this seems like FUD-based reasoning (an in my view, deeply flawed). E.g. "the measures aren't as effective as we hoped" doesn't mean they're

Hmm - by and large this seems like FUD-based reasoning (an in my view, deeply flawed). E.g. "the measures aren't as effective as we hoped" doesn't mean they're completely ineffective. "The data aren't as clear" doesn't mean the data are completely useless. "The virus mutates and is more complex than we thought" doesn't mean its nature is beyond our understanding and we'll never be able to get the upper hand. One thing we agree on is that the CDC has dropped the ball far too many times, and has largely forfeited the trust that many people had in its guidance. Ironically (for your argument) is that this is precisely because it has acted against basic logic and against measures which (though imperfect) do largely work. But it simply doesn't follow that, just because one agency in the U.S. has become unreliable in its pronouncements -- that we can't rely on any basic science at all; that there's no hope of slowing this thing down or of staunching the tide of death and misery; and at land there's no point in attempting to get any kind of social consensus on basic measures (which while imperfect, are still largely effective) to do so.