You haven't answered any of the questions though, you just bring up cases of poor research papers... of which there are many... so what? That's why you need a good body of evidence before taking any decision, rather than running around like a headless chicken after every contradictory report...
What questions? Who to believe? Make your own mind up. This started because Dave said he would trust scientists. I was trying to point out that they are no more trustworthy in the current new environment than anybody else. The article on superspreaders I think started this first followed by my comments about aerosol droplets, and minimum virulent dose.
Like almost everything there is no easy answer. The government is currently parroting the mantra that they are following the science. Which Science? Ours, the Germans, the Swedes?
I would trust a scientific
consensus, but wouldn't trust anything that came out of somebody's mouth just because they were, or claimed to be, a "scientist".
On a slight possibly contrasting tangent, but possibly related, a relative once said she didn't trust wikipedia "because it was written by the general public", but that she would trust it more if it were written by "scholars". My response was, well who are these "scholars"? What's the definition of one?
If you had wikipedia that could only be edited by "scholars", it would still be able to be edited by anybody, but the consensus size would be shrunk to those that can be arsed to jump through the hoops of calling themselves a "scholar".
Maybe the same can be said for "scientists". What's the definition of a "scientist"? Is there a particular qualification you can achieve that affords you the ability to call yourself a "scientist", or is it just somebody who happens to practice science.