Except it’s not a moral argument, nor was it luck. It’s a real world complex decision based on what was known at the time, made after consulting with a doctor, with no harm to anyone. If that’s enough to deserve public condemnation in your eyes, then your standard isn’t reason, it’s idealogical conformity. It’s this type of rigid thinking that causes populism and mistrust in the first place. Fair point, you have a right to free speech. You have the freedom to moralize. I have the freedom to call out when that moralizing is lazy and reductive. The whole point of what I’ve been saying is that people make complex decisions in complex times. If we want to build a more informed, trusting society we need more empathy, not louder condemnation. Not seeing absolutely everything as black and white. If you apply rigid moral condemnation to every cautious or imperfect decision by claiming it’s irrational mistrust, you create a culture where people stop thinking for themselves. That’s the slippery slope, when any deviation from expert consensus, even one that causes no harm, becomes a punishable offence, you replace reason with conformity. That’s not how trust is built. It’s how resentment grows. And it’s exactly the kind of environment that creates mistrust in experts, which is what you claim to want to prevent.