Ultimately, you do have to trust your source of said data, and that's precisely what's been discounted, several times. Maybe the COVID data is correct right now, but how does one really know? Not many of us go out and try to collect it ourselves.
As for COVID data, it would be foolish to claim that the data we have is perfect. After all, we had a seemingly official policy of “if we don’t do tests more, we won’t have more cases” for the first month of the spread in the US. And without a doubt, there are people with stuff to gain by artificially inflating the numbers (incendiary media, etc) and artificially suppressing them (governors, etc). But, I think it’s also difficult to form a coherent claim that the data available is, in aggregate, completely bogus. If you slap an error bar of even 20% on the case numbers, I don’t think my ultimate interpretation of that would not change very much, but YMMV
Back on subject, seems like it's possible though, even if the rest of this article is wrong about COVID, it does mention the fake epidemic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, where the PCR testing was 100% wrong: https://blog.plan99.net/pseudo-epidemics-7603b2da839
It really doesn't help either that dissenting data is auto-flagged as 'disinformation' now either.
And finally 'the data' is just part of the equation. It has justified lockdowns that have a 100% real negative effect on people's lives, whereas for healthy adults COVID has a far less than 1% effect. Plus I'll note that those that most strongly advocate for lockdowns are the least affected by them - media, academics, medical personnel, politicans, tech and other white-collar workers, public school teachers, etc.
It really shows a selfishness, and a careless disregard for fellow citizens who might not be as fortunate. Is it any wonder 'the data' is not to be believed?
the pandemic's affected them a lot, yes, I'm just talking about government imposed lockdowns, which have little in the way of data backing them up.