I think part of why the shots became so controversial, is because the disease adapted anyway. You're basically having to decide on "less bad" vs "roll the dice" when you inevitably get COVID. People were already needing encouragement to get a flu shot; now you need two every 6-12 months? And then you had the whole sidebar discussion of getting Ivermectin, or snake oil silver supplements, or whatever else that was suggested as a cure; you don't get that with discussions over flu. So yeah, it all got uglier than it needed to be.

We in the US still haven't fully come to grips with the loss of over a million people to COVID. And now we're going to kick the can on proven public health measures, that have nothing to do with COVID, because of the off chance someone will become socially isolated / "less cool" to take care of their "freak" neurodivergent child.

I can only speak to my experience in the US and Europe during the pandemic, but I didn't feel singled out because people were aware that the virus kept adapting.

That was actually one of the key lessons I heard from virologists early on in 2020 - viruses like this tend to mutate quickly and escape vaccine-induced immunity. It wasn't until the vaccines were announced that the story changed and we were being told that the vaccines were effective and would only require one or two shots for permanent protection.

It got ugly because scientific study, and more importantly the limits of scientific understanding, was thrown out in favor of a more religious take on the whole field. Media organizations, late night talk shows, and even comedians were doing segments shaming anyone that was attempting to do their ow research (aka learn, consider the trade offs for themselves, and practice informed consent).

I think your experience may be different than others. A lot of people are skeptical of, or can't afford, medical interventions in chronic issues and serious illness. You had anti-vaxxers posting stuff like how the shot was going to make you sterile, or even kill you disproportionately to the virus itself. Your research sounds higher-quality than what most folks even bothered with, and that makes room for the mockery you pointed out.

Oh there was absolutely crazy information being shared around, we definitely agree there.

I had a coworker try to explain how 5G caused covid. Granted there is no technical reason why an EMF couldn't cause similar symptoms, there just wasn't any well founded research showing that and a much more simple explanation already had better scientific support (the novel virus).

Mockery is a tricky one though. Mocking any particular idea seems reasonable enough. Most people at the time were lumping in anyone that chose not to get the vaccine as an anti-vaxxer, wacko, conspiracy theorist, etc.

This sort of rhetoric might've worked pre-Presidency but you would have to be either deliberately ignorant or outright agree with some of the hateful rhetoric of the president. Things like depriving transgender individuals of their basic rights, moving to denaturalize citizens, the white house posting illegal immigration deportation ASMR [1] and many, many more.

[1] https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1891922058415603980

Oh I don't agree with any of the examples you raised. I also don't know how to compare levels of hate, though.

I took issue with Obama-era ICE raids, Biden's speeches regarding anyone that decided not to get vaccinated, Bush's description of really most of the middle east. Hell, even how many have talked about Russians as though every single Russian citizen supports the Ukraine war is hateful.

Hate is almost a given when groups are given a name and we begin othering people. That's nothing new to human history and has seemed to be more and more common over the last decade or two.