Why people believe Covid conspiracy theories: could folklore hold the answer?
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
The mainstream media is never asserting they are the source of truth in these scenarios anyway. WaPo is not claiming to make policy or do its own research, for example. They quote institutions and researchers.
Instead, the fact is that the issues is complex in itself, we are constantly working with incomplete (and sometimes wrong) information forming our judgements in timeframes and under social pressures to have an opinion on so many diverse field in "almost real time". Nobody can accomplish this, which is why we have a clash of "visions", which are substituted for reasoning. Visions of the elites and their numerous followers are dangerous for a simple fact that they quickly become isolated from a feedback to reality. They provide social status advantage, and personally become entwined with one's ego, hence strong emotional bond to mere opinions or collection of such.
Any person disagreeing or challenging the assumptions or premisses of the prevalent vision are viewed not merely wrong in fact but also in a state of "sin" (by not following the elites propagated vision). In fact, one can write entire books on this very topic (e.g T. Sowell, vision of the anointed, and reference therein).
(Way out is only one way [in a sentence] which does not lead to a totalitarian, elite-we-know-better-for-you society; let people bear the cost of their decisions. Not have 3rd parties make decision about individuals bearing no responsibility for the results, nor socializing costs of a decision post-fact.)
Who are elites in this context? Do they include poorly-paid researchers at schools of public health?
I suspect that your definition of "elites and their numerous followers" would be broad enough to include nearly all humans.
> Any person disagreeing or challenging the assumptions or premisses of the prevalent vision are viewed not merely wrong in fact but also in a state of "sin" (by not following the elites propagated vision).
This is demonstrably false in highly polarized places like the US.
For example, there were massive protests after the 2016 elections. All of those millions of people were, to use your words, "challenging [...] the prevalent vision" (i.e. a federal government ruled entirely by the minority Republican party, which was supported by large corporations and the wealthy as well).
> let people bear the cost of their decisions. Not have 3rd parties make decision about individuals bearing no responsibility for the results, nor socializing costs of a decision post-fact.
This has nothing to do with Covid because other people bear the cost of individual decisions. That's the whole problem with infectious disease. It's infectious.
The libertarian fantasy that any decision is 100% individual is ludicrous on its face. All people have jobs, family, friends, pets, debts, promises, and lots of other entanglements that cause their decisions to affect others. They also use common resources, like grocery stores, airports, and hospitals.
I am hard-core in favor of individual rights, but that includes the right of a democratic society to protect ourselves from idiots who believe conspiracy theories.
Do elites and their followers comes from the same strata of society and hold the same values? What is the role of intellectuals in a state? Does income really play the decisive role for them? What else besides income people cherish the most, and how is this weighted in different strata of society?
In your parting remark on the libertarian "fantasy" you want to voice your emotional judgement, to which you are entitled. Im not too much into labels without functional concept.
"...idiots who believe conspiracy theories". Do you know some professional (medical or academic) who believes (COVID in this context) conspiracy? I do, many in fact. I also know academics who teach PhD level physics and publish in top journals, who believe that the earth is 6000 yrs old. I can hardly consider this person idiot in a conventional sense (of cause N. Taleb would have his own view of this).
[I had to skip the election part and the "..because other people bear the cost of individual decisions" part. Too long to expose and investigate this to a sufficient detail. Enough to say that we would disagree right from the premisses, however, those are minor issues, or particulars if you will, which stem from the prevalent assumption of a world view.]