Climate science has been churning for decades. Would disagreeing conclusions be laughed off at first? Sure, probably. When most disagreement has been junk science by quacks, it's natural to reflexively make that assumption of new disagreement. But there's ample time and space for new studies to be analyzed, expanded on, replicated.
Same as with climate science. When predictions turn wrong (glaciers still existing in 2020, Great Barrier Reef recovering) everyone just moves on to new fear-mongering.
Surely you aren't going to argue the the vaccines did more harm than good?
Or that wearing a mask caused someone personal harm?
Or that trying to keep kids safe was a bad idea? My wife personally took care of many sick covid kids. They had all kinds of weird ailments no one was used to pre-pandemic.
Not sure why you are citing glaciers still existing as something to stand on, they are clearly and measurably disappearing.
Her response, "What is the standard of care for Covid patients first presenting?"
There were none for years, the Govt conspired with BigTech to characterize doctors like Zelenko (RIP) and McCullough as loony quacks when they came up with their own protocols for treatment.
Yet, later on the govt did come out with protocols that strangely, mimicked Zelenko & McCullough's material.
No no no this is disinformation! A protocol which includes *checks notes* Pfizermectin is totally different than a protocol which includes ivermectin. You can't compare the two!
If by "Pfizermectin" you are referring to Paxlovid, that is not accurate. There are significant biochemical and pharmacokinetic differences between the molecules.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/12/02/how-does-pfizers-paxlov...
However, the McCullough protocol [1], and the closely related Zelenko protocols were not only about Ivermectin, HCQ, or Zinc, but instead cocktails of drugs with proven efficacy, and an overall approach to treatment prior to hospitalization.
Referencing the late 2020 publication:
Sanitization
Masks
hand washing / hand sanitizer Fresh air / Air circulation Negative pressure air isolation
Supplements:
Zinc with hydroxychloroquine Vitamin D & Vitamin C
Antivirals / Antibiotics
Quercetin Favipiravir Azithromycin Doxycycline
Mono-Clonal antibodies
bamlanivimab (MAB) casirivimab and imdevimab (MABs)
Anti-Inflammatory Colchicine
Corticosteroids
budesonide dexamethasone
Antiplatelet agents and antithrombotics
aspirin heparin Orals - pixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, dabigatran
[1] https://www.imrpress.com/journal/RCM/21/4/10.31083/j.rcm.202...
This is why I say it is all over the place.
Also, RCTs have significant challenges in them
But such evidence didn't exist for COVID. Effectiveness of lockdowns and mask mandates is still hotly contested, for instance.
The fact their effectiveness is still being questioned suggests that we never should have done them in the first place. You don't get to make broad, highly disruptive mandates with almost zero evidence they would even work.
For the mandates to actually be worth it, you should be able to show the data to any reasonable person and they'd immediately see an order of magnitude difference between test & control. The fact you can barely tell florida apart from california is pretty damning. If you need fancy math to see a difference, it wasn't worth it.
Not necessarily. Precautionary principle and all when we didn't know much. Mask mandates aren't that disruptive. Lockdowns obviously more disruptive, and definitely justified at the very beginning when we didn't know anything.
Instead governors doubled down. That was the end of “science and data” and the beginning of 2.5 years of stupidity.
Fauci actually did mislead the public about masks, but he actually believed they were effective, so he lied to the public claiming their ineffectiveness at first due to fears of shortages.