Controversial Political Opinions

[JasonBlack]

(03-17-2022, 01:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There was no alternative but to adjust rules and recommendations according to the science. Complaining about this is dishonest.
#6 is the only one of your charges that I might agree with. But I would not propose that such immunity boosting should in any way substitute for vaccines and treatments.

It is the the context of point 6 that their recommendations are bad. The CDC laying down rules based on the current science is, for the most part, just doing its job. The problem is
1) if they are unwilling to give even common sense advice on diet and exercise to help fight the pandemic, one is legitimate in questioning their motives.
2) I reiterate point #4: there is a difference between giving initial rules for people to follow, and expecting them to continue following your rules after consistently non-replicable findings indicate you aren't close to the answer. I call this the "fallacy of consistent credibility": in which one who has reached a particular status or position demands the same amount of respect and obedience regardless of how frequently they demonstrate diminished competence. Credibility can be taken away just as easily as it has been given, and under the circumstances, that could not be more relevant.