| Tribalism was certainly a significant factor, but I would wager that inconsistency played a bigger role: - Major political figures publicly flaunted their own mask mandates and lockdown rules, with zero consequences. "The rules are for you, not us" is not how you get people to come together to fight a pandemic. - Media condemning social gatherings as super-spreader events, while at the same time, endorsing only very specific riots/protests. - At the start of the pandemic, everybody wanted masks. The CDC then stated masks were ineffective. After that, if you tried to get ahold of masks, you were attacked for doing so. I personally witnessed this tens of times. The same people then flipped around and attacked you if you didn't wear a mask. It was straight out of the last scene in Orwell's 1984. It was spooky. Later, the CDC came out and said, "Hey, we lied to you to guarantee a supply of masks for medical personnel. But you should totally trust us now!" - Media in the US was and is literally nothing but fearporn, which has largely bifurcated the population into "living in terror" and "fresh out of fucks to give". There's plenty more examples, but I'll stop here. The inconsistency would have been workable if it wasn't for the violence and anger. Your ability to publicly change your mind without sacrificing credibility inversely correlates to the violence of your opinion. |
> The same people then flipped around and attacked you if you didn't wear a mask.
I'm of the opinion that the CDC definitely shot itself in the foot w.r.t. the mask issue initially, but I feel it's important to note that the especially belligerent individualists wanted masks when they thought they would protect themselves, but were completely uninterested in their use when they were determined to primarily be effective as a form of source control to protect others.