It's more charitable to acknowledge that each 'side' has been pretty 'religious' on this stuff. Fauci made his was onto Christmas ornaments and so on, after all. There were pro-vaccine dance numbers, and people who went to the beach without being vaccinated or masked were harangued.

There were people who 'followed the science' on this stuff, which is more contentious on general covid policy than you might think, and then there were people who took whatever position their tribe took and threw venom and hate at the other side.

My point was that the issue wasn't the quality or lack of science. There's plenty of papers out there addressing most points people worry about (some come out a bit late, but hey... science takes time to do).

The issue is with politics and media, which you seem to agree on since you're talking about "both sides", Fauci, tribes, venom and hate etc. All of which are concepts that aren't (or shouldn't be) relevant when doing virology and other related science.

In my view this isn't science versus anti-science, it's just media (sponsored by big money) & politicians (sponsored by big money) v.s. the people.

More papers or blaming scientists isn't going to fix any of those issues.

On the other hand, if you exclude vaccines and not even look at them, you just fuel the other sides arguments.

"yes, there is a rise in heart issues in young men recently,..."

"did you check if it's not the vaccines?"

"it's not the vaccines, we didn't check them at all, but we checked everything else, and it could be gas stoves, red meat and eggs, but we're not sure"

I'm vaccinated, but when I got vaccinated, we had four options here in slovenia (J&J, astrazeneca, pfeizer and moderna). Soon after, astrazeneca got cancelled due to causing heart issues in italy and some other places, so we were down to three. Then J&J killed a girl in slovenia, and we stopped using that too. Then moderna stats came out and in many northern european countries it caused a lot of heart issues with young men, and they cancelled it, and we followed... and we were left with pfeizer only.

> just

The poster must mean 'creed' (accepted doctrine), right after '«just»'. But the context is that of distrust - in which that «'just'» is strongly unfit. Not a positive creed but a negative distrust; not an acquired notion but a founded reaction (based on the staggering amount of seen "mess").