I am separating this reply form the last one to keep the points from blurring.
My issue with many of these arguements is the picking and choosing of details to make a point. Not once have I seen a more global discussion. By “global” I mean looking at all feasible aspects. Much dishonesty or at least intellectual dishonesty is also brought in. I am not saying that one viewpoint is more or less guilty than others. The “experts” that claim you should wear a mask outside while jogging is as dishonest as those that claim masks do nothing at all or that the vaccines change one’s DNA (no RNA-dependent DNA polymerase is involved in the vaccine). On masks, the unreasonable recommendation to wear masks outside, when not in crowds especially, gives room for those to clamming masks do nothing. It also gives room for not believing the experts in other recommendations. In the area of lockdowns/shutdowns, a severe degree of “expert” myopia is a major issue. A theoretical life saved from COVID against a life lost due to suicide due to lockdown issues is a net loss. there were many unintended consequences, though that does not mean they were unexpected. Anyway, there are many more points that can be discussed on the COVID. As for the article, it is that picking and choosing that annoys me, but that is the norm on COVID topics!