There seem to be two approaches to the Covid debate. One is to weigh up the available evidence as best you can (deferring to experts where appropriate) and then judge things on that basis. As the information becomes clearer, you adapt your assessment. Maybe you were fixated on 1/

some conditionals that turned out to be wrong. In my case, for example, I thought the vaccine arrival predictions had all the hallmarks of overconfident optimism from experts. It just seemed quite plausible we'd have a 2+ year wait which would make all the NPIs unsustainable 2/

With the arrival of a vaccine, that's a huge change in my inputs. And it changes my perception of what is sustainable, fair, beneficial, etc. Having an end in sight makes many things more tolerable. It gives govts, businesses, and citizens some much-needed clarity as well. 3/

Other approach seems to be to just collect information that supports your position. Then when that information is updated, and no longer supports your position, to completely disregard or reimagine it.

If your opinion hasn't changed much at all throughout 2020, that's weird. 4/4