> Politicians, social media, business, however, totally failed Hear, hear. > “Science” was ok Yes and no. "Science" was """politicized""", possibly in the s

> Politicians, social media, business, however, totally failed Hear, hear. > “Science” was ok Yes and no. "Science" was """politicized""", possibly in the sense the poster used above. That would not be "Science" anymore. What happened is, ignorance was allowed to taint and prevail. Of course, while all around there was havoc, researchers honestly researched. On the other hand, «“Science” was» not «ok», since there where we needed a concerted effort to clarify a situation, for the purpose of sound decision making in a structured framework, i.e. a model in which "We have a ranked and structured list of important questions; these are the tentative provisional answers" - this leadership related goal failed. Far from having obtained dashboards of information in form of rough functions of risks, improved through time, depending on, say, "room cubature" and "surface of openings" and "time of permanence" and "protections used" etc., the leading relevant bodies of leading relevant countries probably still present in their websites "Wash your hands" (for real - this is not an hyperbole, I have seen it). Some evidence of disconnected efforts appeared, together with a chasm in divulgation, between research and public - especially in the said basic need of a "structured presentation of progressive tentative knowledge so far". It is a failure in "journalism", because we need to access digested information, not "the journals".