mhaze,

It's remarkable how quickly "experts were wrong about some things" has morphed into "the cult of expertise is dead."

Expertise didn't die. It was stress-tested in a once-in-a-century event. Governments made imperfect decisions under incomplete information. That's not a cult. That's crisis management.

Calling lockdowns "absurd ideas only intellectuals could believe" is theatre. Reducing contact reduces transmission. That isn't ideology; it's basic epidemiology. The dispute was always about proportionality, duration and trade-offs. Pretending the entire concept was nonsense rewrites history.

You also say authorities "lied" about the vaccine. That's no throwaway line. That's an accusation of intentional deception. Which statement was knowingly false? What evidence shows intent? Overstated early confidence about transmission reduction is not the same thing as a coordinated lie.

As for Bhattacharya, he participated in a policy debate. He wasn't disappeared. He signed open letters, gave interviews, testified publicly, and now heads the NIH. That's not how ruthless suppression usually works.

The more interesting point you raise is trust. Yes, trust eroded. But framing that as a revolution against a "deep state" or a triumphant overthrow of a clerisy is premature at best. If anything, the danger now is swinging from naive deference to reflexive distrust.

Replacing "experts say" with "experts always lie" is not progress. It's just a different kind of credulity.

If we're going to declare the death of expertise, we should at least be precise about what actually died.

Wouldn't you agree?

"It's remarkable how quickly "experts were wrong about some things" has morphed into "the cult of expertise is dead."

It only seems quick to those for whom it is a new revelation. For others its been a long drawn out process that took way too long to materialise.

"Expertise didn't die."

You utterly misunderstand. Expertise didn't die but the cult like deference to 'experts' did. I suspect the subtlety will be elusive.

"Pretending the entire concept was nonsense rewrites history."
Saying that some said the "the entire concept was nonsense" utterly misunderstands the story. It was always about sequestering the truly vulnerable (the aged and those with underlying problems) and building herd immunity in the rest. The lockdown hysteria obviated against that approach and has been shown to be wrong.

"Which statement was knowingly false?"

The authorities said the vaccine stopped transmission of the dreaded WuFlu. That was the main excuse for the vaccine mandates. Only later did the pharmacology industry admit that not only didn't it stop transmission but they were so certain of that that they didn't even run tests to check.

"Replacing "experts say" with "experts always lie" "

You're the only one to use the word 'always' here. You misunderstand and then critique others for your utter misunderstanding.

"we should at least be precise about what actually died."

What actually died was the blind faith in 'the expert'. The blind faith that led to lockdowns and the elderly dying while love-ones were locked out. The blind faith that the pharmacology industry were operating in the interests of the public. The blind faith that the medical authorities were all-knowing and operated in the interests of the public. The blind faith that political classes had the interests of the public at heart. The blind faith that the police forces wouldn't be turned on dissent.

And expanding further, the blind faith that the climate industry knows the future.

mhaze,

That approach assumes the vulnerable can be cleanly isolated from the rest of society while widespread transmission occurs.

//It was always about sequestering the truly vulnerable…//

In practice, care workers, families, and hospital systems link those populations. That operational problem was the core objection - not hysteria.

//The authorities said the vaccine stopped transmission…//

Which authority? Which statement?

Early data showed reduced infection and transmission. Later variants reduced that effect. That is evolving evidence. To call it lying requires proof of known falsity at the time.

//What actually died was blind faith…//

That phrasing assumes the Covid response was driven by blind deference rather than contested modelling, risk assessment, and political judgement under uncertainty. That's precisely what's in dispute.

Disagreeing with the outcome doesn't demonstrate blind faith. It demonstrates that governments made decisions using the precautionary principle in a fast-moving crisis. Calling that "blind faith" is mere rhetorical compression.

If your claim is that decision-makers ignored contrary evidence they knew to be valid, then show that evidence. Otherwise this is just relabelling complex policy trade-offs as epistemic servitude.

"Which authority? Which statement?"

So much of what you write is basically saying "I'm not aware of that therefore its untrue."

The vaccine mandates were only justifiable if the vaccine stopped or severely reduced the transmission.
Medical Journal of Australia...The mandate is "more justifiable when vaccinating one person helps protect others around them" and "vaccinating one person helps protect others around them". Then repeated by NSW health, Victoria Health, Brett Sutton, Daniel Andrews etc.

"You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations." Biden. Repeated by Berejiklian.

""Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and that is not just in the clinical trials but it's also in real-world data." CDC. Used by Australian authorities.

Don't you remember the covid mandates? How were they justified other than by saying they protected others. Don't you remember being told by Chant and Sutton and Andrews that it would "protect grannie"? Don't you remember having to have a covid certificate to go almost anywhere? All shoved down the memory-hole along with all the other unwanted facts?

Now anticipating your next defence of the indefensible, it is true that most of these weren't experts and were only repeating what the experts had told them. So how about you go and find examples of experts or pharmacology companies speaking up to say that what was being said was wrong. And don't further embarrass yourself by quoting anti-lockdown experts who were in fact the only ones speaking the truth.

mhaze,

Asking for precision about which statement and what evidence existed at the time is not claiming something is untrue. It's asking whether it was knowingly false.

//So much of what you write is basically saying "I'm not aware of that therefore it's untrue."//

No, it's asking whether statements that later proved incorrect were knowingly false at the time they were made. That distinction matters.

//The vaccine mandates were only justifiable if the vaccine stopped transmission.//

That's not accurate. Mandates were justified on reducing transmission risk, reducing severity, and preventing hospital overload. Sterilising immunity was never a regulatory requirement for mandate arguments.

As for your Biden and CDC quotes, those statements were overly confident and, in hindsight, incorrect. But the key question remains: were they made with knowledge that they were false? In early 2021, data showed strong reductions in infection and transmission against the original strain. Delta and Omicron materially changed that picture.

Incorrect prediction is not identical to intentional deception.

//Don't you remember…//

Yes. I remember the period. I also remember evolving variants, changing efficacy data, and public scientific debate. Memory is not evidence of intent.

If the claim is that authorities knowingly misrepresented transmission data, then point to evidence showing they were aware their statements were false when made. Without that, this remains a case of overconfidence in evolving evidence, not coordinated lying.

That's a serious difference.

"If the claim is that authorities knowingly misrepresented transmission data, then point to evidence showing they were aware their statements were false when made"

I already did. They confirmed that they knew it didn't stop transmission and were so sure of that that they didn't even bother checking. Yet the claims were made and never refuted. I suggested you find examples of them refuting what was clearly incorrect claims, and obviously you couldn't because they didn't.

I've said before on these pages that I always think its sad that people lived through consequential events in their lives (end of the Cold War, fall of the USSR, 911, rise of MAGA, Covid) and utterly misunderstand it. People lived the vaccine mandates and yet don't understand the ramifications of forcing a population to take untested drugs that turned out to be unsafe.