For some it’s also an application of the precautionary principle, and a worry that rushing into widespread application of an experimental treatment may present unknown harms. Contra to the contrarians rejecting establishment science, a secondary concern driving the precautionary perspective is a fear that if there are major medium or long term complications then it would lead to a widespread distrust of the scientific establishment itself.

The problem is that an epistemic closure around this issue has emerged for a variety of reasons, so the people who are skeptical and willing to talk about it are few in number and looking for allies, so you end up with a rather motley crew.

I’m interested in what people like Pierre Kory and Tess Lawrie say on this issue because they seem like credible people without a track record of crankery, and they’ve looked at the same evidence as the WHO and come to different conclusions. Even if they are wrong it is interesting to engrave with and figure out why. And if they are right, it would be good to figure that out sooner rather than later. But any time I stick around in the forums where their work is discussed the comments section is often overrun by unhinged wackos with different motivations.