I wonder how aware the author of the Atlantic article is. This is all she says about the vaccines. > Another example: When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson & Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna. The mRNA vaccines have won out. But at the time, many people in public health were either neutral or expressed a J&J preference. This misstep wasn’t nefarious. It was the result of uncertainty. What she is talking about here is a non issue. It sounds like she wanted to say we know more about the vaccines now, but she didn’t want to say the obvious things—that they are poisonous failures. Then there is this gem: > Obviously some people intended to mislead and made wildly irresponsible claims. Remember when the public-health community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach? That was bad. Misinformation was, and remains, a huge problem. But most errors were made by people who were working in earnest for the good of society. It was *CNN* who told people the president said to inject household cleaning agents to cure COVID-19. *CNN* said that. Not the president. Not internet “conspiracy theorists”. *CNN*. Maybe she’s suggesting we excuse CNN for telling people to inject household cleaning agents. CNN will own that one. No amnesty.