"You will see that there are a few who get absolutely rabid when defending the jab and it's follow up jabs since the original one didn't work as planned. I once owned a Maserati. My wife told me before I bought it, that it was a foolish choice. I bought it, believing the salesman that maintenance was not extreme and it would fulfill all my driving fantasies. Of course, it was a nightmare. Even so, with each visit, and bill from the repair shop, I dug my heels in deeper, stating how great the auto was and how I would buy one again. To admit that it was a mistake at this point would prove I made a poor decision. "
Great points.
I too have noticed the defensiveness on the part of some when their views on the efficacy of the vaccine/subsequent boosters are questioned. On an individual level it is somewhat amusing but when it becomes the case with government entities it is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Case in point. Minnesota was one of the most front-and-center states in The-Sky-Is-Falling movement. Led by University of Minnesota epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, the doleful prediction was that one hundred thousand Minnesotans were in line to die of COVID in the space of eight months (the numbers and timelines may vary but that is the gist of it). Didn't happen, of course, but Governor Walz, a somewhat credulous type, bought into it hook, line and sinker. The state began hosting weekly (Saturday mornings as I recall) media sessions where he and Minnesota Dept. of Health Director Jan Malcolm, in dirgelike tones, recounted the previous week's progress of the bug across Minnesota. The tone of those sessions gradually changed as the numbers began to reveal that what was happening was nothing like the doleful predictions, but Walz, sticking to the original script, went out on a limb and purchased, for several million dollars, a huge old warehouse that was going to be used as a temporary morgue for all the COVID victims that he was sure were going to be swept up off the street that winter. Didn't happen, of course, and there were quite a few waggish suggestions made as to how the State could use that building. As far as I know, it still sits there, empty.
The problem was, even when the numbers began to tell a tale that was diametrically opposite of what the official doomsayers predicted, the state agencies refused to change course, many adapting the narrative to support continued draconian measures that the situation obviously did not call for. In my judgment it was a case of "in for a penny, in for a pound". A lot of well-known academic and department-head types had gone out so far on The-Sky-Is-Falling limb, that any change in course or action would have meant totally reversing their original take(s), and by so doing would have made them look extremely stupid.
Not admitting to obvious mistakes is the height of irresponsibility, in my opinion.
|