Trust is a social phenomenon. The pandemic was a huge social upheaval. The best information available was being provided by epidemiologists and doctors and sta

Trust is a social phenomenon. The pandemic was a huge social upheaval. The best information available was being provided by epidemiologists and doctors and statisticians and researchers. It was messy and contradictory and confusing sometimes, especially in the beginning. Like science. Other information was being provided by politicians and radio hosts and religious figures and somebody's uncle. It was speculative and invented and delusional and manipulated and dishonest sometimes, according to the whims of famous personalities and media outlets. Like gossip. Given those options, "trust the science" is a pretty reasonable message. Not "trust the science to have all the answers immediately and with complete accuracy and no amendments", because that is not science. More like "trust the science over the gossip". But I take your point. People don't understand science, so it's very easy for them to feel betrayed when science does its usual messy science things. And of course there were stochastic parrots on either side. That said, the "trust the science" parrots had better health outcomes than the "impeach fauci" parrots. This seems unlikely to be a coincidence -- and as a blunt social influence tool, it's reasonable to conclude that "trust the science" was the better choice of intense propaganda, if not as persuasive as we all would have liked.