It would have been career suicide to go against the narrative with covid. Witness what happens to any paper published that suggests things in covid-land might not be as bad as claimed. They first get discredited as "not peer reviewed" and their authors get thrown to the wolves. Same with anything that shows masks don't really work very well. Or lockdowns don't work well. "Not peer reviewed" and "authors are bozos".
These same people have absolutely no problem accepting papers that are based on crazy computer models using garbage data or "studies" that don't mimic anything real with very small sample sizes.
Anything that goes with the narrative that covid is the worst thing ever and that masks are awesome was cheered on. It didn't matter how flimsy the research was. As long as it supported the cause it was golden.
It would have been career suicide to go against the narrative with covid. Witness what happens to any paper published that suggests things in covid-land might not be as bad as claimed. They first get discredited as "not peer reviewed" and their authors get thrown to the wolves. Same with anything that shows masks don't really work very well. Or lockdowns don't work well. "Not peer reviewed" and "authors are bozos".
These same people have absolutely no problem accepting papers that are based on crazy computer models using garbage data or "studies" that don't mimic anything real with very small sample sizes.
Anything that goes with the narrative that covid is the worst thing ever and that masks are awesome was cheered on. It didn't matter how flimsy the research was. As long as it supported the cause it was golden.