The erosion of institutional trust became much more widespread post Covid. As it should have.

Why?

> Why?

Locking people down at home for over 2 years. Damaging an entire generation of young children in the process.

Destroying the economy in the process. Inflationary policies which lead to recessions and stagflation globally from which we still haven't recovered (and probably won't for the next 5-10 years).

Spreading mass fear and hysteria based on little empirical (and often contradictory) evidence.

Obliterating global travel and commerce.

Forced global-scale campaigns on live, involuntary human experimentation. Get the jab or stay locked up. Get the app or forget about going to work today.

Forcing people to wear thin pieces of cloth over their faces for no reason.

Silencing any critique and punishing any forms of noncompliance with heavy fines and incarceration (Djokovic is a threat to national security and public health).

Normalizing "asking difficult questions" as something only "conspiracy theorists" would do.

Installing anti-democratic laws and mechanisms which subvert the individual's right to free speech, gathering, movement, and control over their own body.

Bullshit and twisted statistics arbitrarily used as excuse for random decisions.

This list is far from complete...

I don't remember most these things happening in the US but maybe you live somewhere else. In hindsight there were a ton of mistakes, but I do remember there being mass graves and overworked medical people WHILE there was a lockdown so some of the irrational things probably make sense.

Rather than being an issue of "institutional trust" it's an issue of a deep and continuing disagreement about the correct trade-offs to make in the face of a novel and quickly evolving situation - and one in which nobody had a crystal ball.

Many people who are far from the levers of power would disagree strongly with your above portrayal. It's an issue that divides people more than an issue where the masses were hoodwinked by an elite with ulterior motives.

In addition the policies while they may not have matched what was necessary where in and of themselves a form of communication to get people to take it seriously.

There might not have been a reason to make everyone stay home, but if the only way you can get people to take a quickly evolving situation seriously is to over correct, then that is the tool you have to use.

By making the same rules apply to everyone and having such extreme responses it reduced the ability for the majority to say "yeah, its bad but it doesn't apply to me". By making everyone wear masks, it was the only way to get the people who really needed to wear the masks to do so.

The policies were extreme because the situation was extreme. People now have the hindsight, but I have lost at least 3 family members and 5 neighbors due to covid and the secondary effects. 4 of those died of ordinarily treatable causes (heat attack, pneumonia, etc), but the health system wasn't able to provide them the treatment needed because of Covid was overwhelming them.

Fauci himself admitted last week that a lot of the policies he pushed for had no science to back them up. “They just kind of appeared” to paraphrase him. However when he was challenged on the science of those policies during that time, he called it “an attack against science.”

No wonder no one trusts the government anymore.

You're just listing a bunch of things that you happen to disagree with using very charged language. I'm guessing that you would object to the characterization of the riots following BLM protests as an reasonable reaction to institutional systemic racism?

Belief in democracy requires that you assume that most people are acting in good faith. Perfectly intelligent people have sensible, non-malicious reasons to come to conclusions that are opposite of yours.

And the obvious and rational response to such things would be to believe in, then purchase premium fungii that can "provide the oxygenation of the whole body, mental power, muscle tone, sexual energy, and immune function", some even come with extra "masculine energy". Makes sense.

Because if you are honest and tell people they only have to wear a mask if they are sick, nobody would wear a mask.

Among other errors they overestimated the effectiveness of the Covid vaccine, said it stopped transmission when it didn't, didn't consider measures to mitigate the risk of myocarditis in young people, and claimed contracting Covid didn't provide immunity equivalent to vaccination.

There's definitely an observed political dimension to alternative medicine camps; in other words there is a big "left vs right" phenomena that's worth observing. But what we might really be seeing is young vs old in the willingness to consider alternative medicine.

After all, why should young healthy people spend so much time thinking about rejecting mainstream medicine?

Mortality's a helluva drug.

The unfortunate reality of the breakdown in trust is because the institutions are behaving in a way that would reinforce this. It is easy to look at the extremes like Qanon, but even if you look beyond the surface on any institution in this country, it is really hard to be positive or hopeful about anything. For example it is hard to trust in the Supreme Court once you notice that judges (on both side of the political spectrum) have been accepting favors from Billionaires, legally, but unethically. Could you realistically think these judges could rule fairly in cases that involve their benefactors? This was once the highest trusted institution in the country, now think about the ones that weren't that trusted to begin with.

This is an expected consequence of over monopolization of industry. You lose all the natural power of moderation that comes from the market. With that gone, corruption is left unchecked, regulatory bodies are captured, and collusion is purchased to gaslight everyone over the truth.

You also should never trust any court, in particular, the Supreme Court. A court has no special access to facts, yet it operates with complete authority, as if it's process was entirely without error. They are a compromise that only makes sense when all other civil remedies have been exhausted because there is no mechanism to guarantee an improved outcome from their involvement.

Which highlights the basic point here, any institution of appreciable size and without competition cannot possibly remain uncorrupted by it. It's essentially impossible to build any government institution that is worthy of "trust."

> A court has no special access to facts

There are facts out there that can otherwise be kept private until subpoenad by court order, is that not special access to facts?

Per my reading, that seems to be different from what they mean. Any court can subpoena facts and the supreme court is not special in that regard.

It's been well-earned. How many iterations of the food pyramid? How many times have we been told that X is okay, only to find out some decades later that X is in fact, not good for us? Flame retardants, can liners. Don't wear masks. Do wear masks. Okay, we lied, but it was for a good reason. This is safe for pregnant women. Then it turns out not to be safe for pregnant women, but they keep prescribing it anyway. Now that everyone involved is off the board and/or dead, we can admit it: we knew about global warming decades ago. Nobody got locked up for Tuskegee, the psychopath who tortured David Reimer and his brother was lauded as a visionary, and the inventor of the lobotomy got a Nobel Prize for this daring feat of psychosurgery ... just a year before the Soviet Union banned it on moral grounds. Feed some kids radioactive oatmeal, become the head of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Of course experts aren't respected. They've demanded it.

Your comment made me look up Canada's food guide. When I was growing up I remember dairy being heavily pushed but if you go there today, there's no mention of it.

Canada is more effectively able to push back against corporate interests. most of the time -- O&G still rule the roost

I feel like this is an understandable trend. With inflation and job markets and various conflicts around the world, combined with the near constant flood of near-realtime data online, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed. This “anti-expert,” Qanon, flat-earth conspiracy trend fundamentally is a way for folks who feel like life is out of their control to get some of that control back by believing they have some piece of knowledge or information that gives them a “one up” on the “establishment.” I know something that you don’t, and that gives me power…when I don’t really have any.

Yeah, I think a big part of the trendiness of these groups on both sides comes down to a sense of powerlessness in the world. The "secret knowledge" allure is certainly part of it, and I think for both the Goop-left and Infowars-right there's a strong sense of "manifest your destiny", either by being a gun toting self-sufficient alpha male or by harmonizing your vibes with the cosmic mind to manifest positivity in your life.

We've focused on the individual so much in American society that people have a real hard time viewing their individual situations as anything other than a personal failure and something they alone must correct, so we wind up with this kind of wacky bullshit instead of, like, labor laws and healthcare.

We have labor laws and healthcare, they're just not enough and intrapreneurship probably isn't enough to fix them systemically. I see this as healthy growth, the people who don't get healed from what modern medicine currently covers are desperate enough to try these outlandish remedy attempts. If a lot of people have the same problems and figure out a cure, it will get incorporated into whatever they teach the MDs.

People ARE individuals, on a physical level too. Modern medicine is notoriously bad at addressing this, and until the technology catches up the only alternative to people trying things on their own is state-mandated trials on vulnerable groups.

I think it's more than a coincidence that we see this "anti-expert" ideology concentrated at the two political poles. For either the far left or right, it's important to reject evidence that doesn't conform to ideology, and eventually the way to do that is to reject authority that isn't your own. They don't want to be subject to authority, they want to be be the unquestioned authority.

It doesn't matter if the topic is far beyond them, what matters is that they have an answer and that answer reinforces their biases. Reality is the enemy.

Yeah, I think you're right that a big chunk of this is vibes-based in-group signalling. One doesn't usually wind up far out on the political poles if one's generally happy with the decisions and worldview of the experts/authorities.

> For either the far left or right, it's important to reject evidence that doesn't conform to ideology,

Isn't that what everyone does, regardless of distance or direction?

> They don't want to be subject to authority, they want to be be the unquestioned authority.

So where do the people who question authority fit into this neat dichotomy?