That's the problem with anecdotal evidence, I have no idea how to make a statistically valid comparison of "several deaths" with the risk of death if no one is vaccinated. But I trust that the CDC and FDA did make that comparison and are still measuring and monitoring.

Hm, a thought - in a world where we are only in immediate contact with less than 200 people, an event happening to someone you know about carries meaningful information about the statistical likelihood of that event. We probably developed some heuristics based on that. Now we have a global telecommunications network which means that any strange event gets broadcast everywhere - this must surely break those heuristics, artificially inflating the perceived probability of rare events. There's also "celebrities", who feel like close acquaintances to millions of people. A single rare event happening to a celebrity gets amplified hugely.

The CDC that: Says go ahead and give refugees Ivermectin and they're cool come on in lul https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/guidelines/overse...

Gives preferential treatment to certain companies that continuously fuck people over (hint: it's corruption): https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=2zoSSHx9QtA

Or that caves to teacher unions (I don't even...) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cdc-tightened-masking-guide...

And the FDA? They still actually push the food pyramid. It's a total clown show over there.

Is there a for real reason to trust these government agencies at all at this point?

To save others a click: CDC says to give ivermectin to kill intestinal parasites (with an exception due to risk to people who might be carrying loa loa). Not horse paste to treat a virus.