You also have countries like Germany who are starting to realize the actual burden of infecting the general population and necessity to follow what current evidence we have to tackle the long-tail issues:
The consensus now is quite different.
Maybe you were referring to March 2020, in which case I agree that it did humanity very little good, at least in regard of its application to children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/
I'm not arguing for or against preventative measures. I am arguing that our health officials could do a better job discussing what we know about it now to help individuals make choices.
You highlight the quantity of publications. You’re right. The narrative is already set. The volume is so large.
But what is happening in practice, even in healthcare (at least in the UK), is that little of the theatre is performed anymore. Doctors are mostly unmasked, no one does distancing, and the mandates were unwound long ago. Not sure about testing, but the odd hacking cough here and there draws no petrified stare. So I guess that’s where I disagree: the consensus in practice is running far ahead of the average tone in published science.
I wonder how much that will percolate down. Perhaps we’ll just learn to live with a published scientific position that is grossly at odds with day to day behaviour — how odd! It will give the behavioural scientists something new to work on.
But your basic thesis (that “don’t get infected” is unhelpful advice) is right. It’s simply not actionable.