I have to admit that there is some reason to be skeptical of some of the
claims made by authorities over the course of the pandemic. I have
remarked on my objections to be told to "follow the science" when the
information is based more on anecdotes than in empirical science.
At the beginning we were told that we didn't need to wear masks. As it
turned out, they were concerned about the shortage of masks and other
PPE and didn't want people hording them. Once there was a good supply of
masks we were told we have to be masked.
Then the vaccines came out. There were reviews of the various vaccines
and Pfizer was among the most effective. Within a couple months we
found that it was not as effective as we had been told and that after a
couple months its effectiveness had dropped to a small fraction of the
original projection, so we needed a second shot. It was supposed to
raise protection above that of the original shot and should be given
within a certain time frame. Well, hell, a lot of people still hadn't
had their first shot, so the extended the time between the shots.
Now those second shots are only providing about 65% protection, not the
95% + we had been told, so we have to get a third booster. The booster
would be best within a few months but.... we still had a lot of
unvaccinated people and those who had only one shot... so now it can be
6 months.
When I went for my booster I was supposed to get Pfizer again. I got to
the clinic and I got a spiel about how for my age group I would be
better off with Moderna. I was suspicious. Here we are a week and a bit
after the booster and I heard on a news report that the are pushing the
Moderna for older folks so there will be enough Pfizer for the younger
people.
What it comes down to is that the things they tell us seem to have more
to do with their supplies than the real data.