The foundation of the scientific method is that nothing, including the fundamental laws of science, are immune to inquiry. Ideas only become more elevated and accepted after passing through rigorous skepticism; strong skepticism was celebrated as it is the essential conduit to bring us nearer to absolute truths . Unfortunately, what we've seen is anything but that.
The highly visible and open inquiry into what C19 is and how to fight it has left scientific community with lots of egg on its face. In lieu of exploring legitimate probes, anything that dared to question the core narrative was labeled as "dangerous," cast aside as a wacko conspiracy theory, and subsequently scrubbed from the public forums. Scientists cozied up to politics instead of remaining the separate and unbiased sources they claim to be. Instead of being agile and adaptive, this new rigid path failed to respond quickly and appropriately. The crux of this all is that this deviation from the fundamental ideals of the scientific method has only proven how essential it is to keep to it in the first place. The hubris of the community and it's complete reluctance to appropriately debrief and self-correct greatly exasperated the failures we saw in our responses. What we are seeing now is that scientists are finally beginning to look into theories that were brought up (and quickly disregarded) over a year ago that could have provided invaluable information into appropriate policy construction. It's impossible to know what kind of impact this would have made, but I fail to see how the availability of more correct information could lead to worse outcomes.
Whenever we get on the backside of this, the public trust in the scientific community has been significantly damaged and it will take some time to gain it back. But, what do I know, maybe there's some new science they're teaching since I finished grad school.