"Deferring to the consensus of experts sounds sensible, but no one claiming to be doing that has interviewed even a single expert. They're just repeating what NPR said the University of Wherever said all the experts agree on."

Jason, how on earth can you assert that 'no one claiming to be doing that has interviewed even a single expert'? No one? Ever? Please cite your evidence that no journalist has ever interviewed a single expert. I'll wait.

In fact, neither journalists nor the general public need to 'interview all the experts,' since professional associations, scientific societies, universities and public agencies routinely issue fact sheets, research summaries and position papers on virtually every topic that they are involved with. Since our discussion is about vaccines, you will be delighted to know that the Mayo Clinic alone has readily available, on its website, no less than 3,103 fact sheets containing information about vaccines. And no, you did not misread that.

"Experts are always on someone's payroll. Anyone who makes it on TV will not be sharing his own probably nuanced views but hewing to his institution's narrative."

Jason, I am guessing that you have never supervised a team of professionals with advanced degrees. They have often dedicated their lives to a profession that is very important to them, and they embrace that profession with pride--usually valuing it above the particular place that may currently employ them. It is said that every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. I can assure you that a good many scientists and technicians look in the mirror and see a Nobel Prize winner. Very few are inclined to throw away their careers and their reputations to appease the boss.

"Oil company executives are experts, but who believes them?"

Oil company executives are rarely experts in the sense that the geologists who work for them are. Oil company executives are experts in management, perhaps, and finance--but they typically aren't scientists.

"If you're hearing the same covid story from every government agency, every media outlet, and every big tech firm, is that because the world's epidemiology experts all understand it clearly, all agree, and somehow were placed in charge of every institution in the past two years?"

Coronaviruses were recognized as such in 1965, and have been the subject of intense, ongoing study since then. There are literally hundreds of different coronaviruses, so when SARS-COV-2 emerged, researchers didn't have to begin from scratch. Still, these viruses are notoriously variable and in the early weeks of the pandemic, there were some important unknowns--leading the experts to change and modify their advice as more information became available ... that is completely natural and to be expected, and why so many people rush to the absurd conclusion that the scientists don't know what the hell they are talking about is beyond me. Could you have done better?

Bottom line: we don't know what we don't know, but the research community has moved aggressively in identifying more effective treatments and in developing vacciines--and they have saved countless lives. A simple "thank you" would be more apporpriate than the invective. And as for the general agreement among mainstream, institutions, have you considered the possibility that there is a consensus because what they are saying is true?

Quarantining the healthy was an inexcusable experiment in public health policy. It had manifestly failed by April of 2020.

Okay, Jason, I have a confession: you are obviously an intelligent person with strong anti-authority biases--and without any significant knowledge of epidemiology. But those final two sentences that I quoted are utterly and completely irrational ... I hardly know where to begin.

We did not know in February, March and April of 2020 who was healthy and who was a carrier. We did not know how deadly the disease would eventually prove to be. We only knew that the coronavirus had penetrated deeper into the nation than we had hoped--and that this virus had the capacity to quickly create new variants that might be far more contagious and/or more deadly. To not impose a quarantine would have been utterly irresponsible. Yes, there was a cost--but we undoubtedly saved many lives.

I think it is clear that you and I are not going to find any common ground., so these will be my final comments. You acknowledged that "deferring to the consensus of experts sounds sensible," but then immediately started grasping at reasons to ignore the recommendations of those who actually know what they are talking about--preferring, apparently, to listen to propagandists who trade in conspiracy theories. To quote Jason Glazer, "Sorry, I expect better than this."

Best wishes for the holidays.