it all depends on what particular detail wasn't able to be predicted. in this case the need for boosters. we knew by late june boosters would be needed. so all

it all depends on what particular detail wasn't able to be predicted. in this case the need for boosters. we knew by late june boosters would be needed. so all messaging after june should have been consistent. it wasnt. what wasn't predictable was when precisely we needed to issue boosters and to whom. because we simply didn't have the data on that until around september. However since september it was very predictable that we needed them for the holiday season. I got mine in early november because it was fucking obvious. omicron wasn't 100% assured but it was in the news and most sound bites were 'more contagious'. its entirely possible to be consistent in the face on unpredictable events. 1. outright say 'we don't currently have the information needed yet check back later' or 'worst case scenario would be X, we're going to start with those assumptions' 2. repeat step 1 until you have the data or know you never will 3. once data is acquired adjust statements. this is being consistent and clear. another example of this is masking and viral spread. 1. assume worst case for viral spread (airborne) 2. message masks are necessary until more is known about how the virus spreads. 3. if results come back disproving airborne spread, say so. instead we got: 1. masks not necessary. virus doesn't seem to be airborne. 2. OOPS VIRUS IS AIRBORNE. the first case is consistent, assume worst case and then ease restrictions. the 2nd case is completely inconsistent.