Why would you argue .... -- Sabolina, every other postYeah, but, what about....?
Doctors, nurses, PPE , antiviral drugs and the coming vaccine I believe
Perhaps we should get this thread back on track. Allow me, here’s an interesting exercise in self examination.
Misinformation in and about science Jevin D. West and Carl T. BergstromPNAS April 13, 2021 118 (15) e1912444117; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912444117
Humans learn about the world by collectively acquiring information, filtering it, and sharing what we know. Misinformation undermines this process. The repercussions are extensive.
Without reliable and accurate sources of information, we cannot hope to halt climate change, make reasoned democratic decisions, or control a global pandemic.
Most analyses of misinformation focus on popular and social media, but the scientific enterprise faces a parallel set of problems—from hype and hyperbole to publication bias and citation misdirection, predatory publishing, and filter bubbles. In this perspective, we highlight these parallels and discuss future research directions and interventions.
Misinformation has reached crisis proportions. It poses a risk to international peace (1), interferes with democratic decision making (2), endangers the well-being of the planet (3), and threatens public health (4, 5). Public support for policies to control the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is being undercut by misinformation, leading to the World Health Organization’s “infodemic” declaration (6).
Ultimately, misinformation undermines collective sense making and collective action.
We cannot solve problems of public health, social inequity, or climate change without also addressing the growing problem of misinformation.
Most of the research efforts and interventions examine broad, public consumption of misinformation—modeling the spreading dynamics of falsehoods (7, 8), examining social network effects (9, 10), and evaluating crowd-sourced mediation (11), with a special focus on crisis events (12) and political elections (13).
In this article, we turn the spotlight on science. We look at the ways that misinformation can travel within science due to misaligned incentives, out-of-date publishing norms, and sociotechnical systems that concentrate attention and credit on a small subset of the literature. …
Peoples faith in science also erodes when (1) conflicting reports come out, or (2) the details of how they came to a conclusion are “revealed” (or exaggerated)
(1) Coffee is good for you. Coffee is bad for you. Alcohol is bad for you. A glass of wine a day is good for you. … We’ve all probably seen and joked about all of these statements. Some of these statements could probably be attributed to some of the underlying reasons stated in the OP.
(2) A joke from when I was a kid: “Red dye #2 causes cancer!” Scientists fed a mouse 15 cans of red cream soda (which contained RD#2) a day for 2 years and it died of cancer
How much responsibility do people need to take?
What about critical thinking?
What about curiosity to pursue competing information?
What about wanting to think thing through for oneself?
I mean I’m just the product of a public grade school, high school education. I’m no genius, I screw up as much as not, all I have is a belief in honesty, good faith curiosity, and I strive to pay attention, and I love learning ever more. The con-artists can be recognized a mile away, usually by the crowd of gullible people listening to them. 
Though, there are plenty of other ‘tells.’
Guess that in the end, it all comes down to, “what shall one be present to?”