[peteradio]

As soon as you stop being critical of the experts they get swapped out for empty suits. There is plenty of reason to be skeptical of experts on anything novel. Experts are also tremendously cautious in the advice given where given your day to day risk tolerance it is a tremendous distraction to focus on one particular source of risk. Probably it makes sense for some people to just follow the given guidance but for some others it induces too much cognitive dissonance. I would hate to live in a world full of mandates based on hot off the presses science.

[wellokpetejr]

Healthy skepticism is fine, but if I’m skeptical of experts on anything novel, whose information am I supposed to trust? What is a better decision making process?

Don’t we have conflicting needs here? We don’t want scientists waiting for perfect information before providing guidance on a constantly evolving situation but then we are unhappy with the guidance they provide?

[peteradio]

I guess the alternative is basing you choices only marginally on "novel expert" advice moderated by the apparent urgency.