Wow they were able to objectively navigate their way through an honest dialogue! Feels like a damn miracle!<br>Why are conversations like these rare in today's information ecosystem? <br><br>Regarding vaccine hesitancy, I think part of the issue is grounded in the fact that  politics and science demand starkly different emotional sensitivities. Political leaders are expected to establish strength and expediency, offer the "correct" answers, and to guide with certainty with a clear trajectory ahead. On the other hand the process of science is tentative and blind, based on error-correction, and is heavily data-reliant thus causing time-lags. <br><br>Since the role of public health officials falls within the domain of politics (despite dealing with matters of science), there seems to be a tension that was unable to be resolved due to the stark emotional demands. <br><br>In truth, as Jacob Bronowski points out in "science and human values" ... Facts and values are logically separate categories but they are fundamentally tied together. You cannot get an ought from an is, but you can't get an is without an ought. Therefore, if we all choose to adopt a rationalistic attitude to all our endeavours we'd all occupy the same reality. If we  unite in our commitment to logical consistentcy, preservation of reasonable dissent, tolerance, explanatory elegance and intellectual honesty, then these societal problems will be far easier to navigate in the future. <br><br>This entire pandemic unfortunately has been plagued with political point scoring, shaming those with different views and awful public health messaging (i.e. policies against attending funerals, but freedom to protest in the hundreds of thousands on the streets when George Floyd died etc)