Here's a small sampling (first page of google for "vaccine will end pandemic 2020". It's easy to find a lot). Very reasonable news sources (bloomberg, official

Here's a small sampling (first page of google for "vaccine will end pandemic 2020". It's easy to find a lot). Very reasonable news sources (bloomberg, official UN news, the atlantic, etc) "Covid won’t be a pandemic for “a lot longer” thanks to rapid progress in vaccine development, according to Anthony Fauci, the top U.S. infectious disease official." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-12/covid-won-t-be-pandemic-for-long-thanks-to-vaccines-fauci-says#xj4y7vzkg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-12/covid-won... "The End of the Pandemic Is Now in Sight A year of scientific uncertainty is over. Two vaccines look like they will work, and more should follow." https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/11/vaccines-end-covid-19-pandemic-sight/617141/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/11/vaccines-... "“This is a time for taking comfort that the end of the pandemic is in sight, but taking care that we do not let down our guard. " https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1080422 https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1080422 https://www.ucihealth.org/blog/2020/12/covid-vaccines-can-end-pandemic https://www.ucihealth.org/blog/2020/12/covid-vaccines-can-en... etc Now, keep in mind, like I said, I understand that a lot of this is 1. Sensationalization of what various scientists said (though there are plenty of stupid quotes that they should not have said) 2. Things that change over time It's also the case that buried deep towards the end of most of them are the typical "there are still unanswered questions" style silliness to make the headlines/etc more defensible when they get called out on it later (IE "well we did say there was uncertainty in two words of one sentence at the end of the article!"). Of course, they also put those in a place in the article that they literally know will not be reached by ~90% of readers. So I think it's fair to say that when it gets presented to tons of people as it has in these headlines/stories, and then a year later, the same places are just giving you a completely different narrative now based on reduction of severity rather than transmission of disease, that definitely makes people trust the narrative, the outlets, and the scientists less. In that, i mostly blame the outlets/media, not the people or the scientists. They know exactly what they are doing. They know exactly what parts of their stories people look at, what they want, etc. To me, the way they operate is as bad for society as facebook/etc, but much more dangerous in practice because they are much more effective at playing both sides - big tech will be regulated, but the media?. Where we are on even considering having media have any form of responsibility or accountability? They are very effective at shifting between arguments. How many industries can you name that have been successful simultaneously arguing things like "the first amendment means we should not have any responsibility or accountability at all on what or how we publish and what it says" and "everyone else should be forced to pay us for what we do decide to publish". You can produce whatever you want with reckless abandon, and everyone else should have to buy it from you. Nice racket if you can swing it.