I said earlier in the thread that I can see both sides of this debate. I've received PMs and emails (both supporting me as well as mistaking my intent / questioning my motivations), so I think I'd better explain what I mean. You all know how long-winded I can be, so I apologize ahead of time for this novel. TL:DR is at the bottom.
This is not a black-and-white zero-sum game. Both sides have good points to be made, but they're going about it badly.
Insulting the intelligence and/or motivations of the other side does nobody any good. Offering "compromise" statements that aren't really compromises (then acting offended / disappointed when they aren't accepted) doesn't do any good either. Approaching the conversation with the attitude of "the other side must agree with me or they're proving themselves to be morally and ethically corrupt / inferior / stupid" doesn't convert anybody, change anybody's mind, or prove anything beyond showing your own personal biases. Immediately dismissing information presented by the other side simply because it's from a source that I don't trust, that I think is biased, or simply because it was the other side who presented it also doesn't do anything helpful.
During this grand social discussion that the world is having, each side thinks the other is engaging in Goebbels' approach of repeating lies often enough that they become truth - and in a way, both sides are right on that perspective. Both sides are citing data to support their own claims and refusing to acknowledge the data the other side presents. Both sides say that the other side's data can't be trusted - and to a certain extent, they are right. Not completely, but not incompletely either. Both sides purport to present scientifically-sourced data, but there's no way to tell if those sources are biased, lying for their own reasons, or are genuinely academic and present all the pertinent information necessary to make a fully informed opinion. There's no rule that says that scientists are automatically unbiased, and there's no rule saying that non-scientists can't use common-sense to identify facts. Truth doesn't always come from science because scientists are human, but truth doesn't always come from moral outrage either. But that doesn't mean that scientists and moralists can be dismissed out of hand either. They need each other to balance out the perspectives.
One don't have to be educated to be intelligent, and just because one is educated doesn't mean they are correct or have a more valid claim on what is "truth".
The problem that has been developing over the last few decades is that there has been so much deception on the part of media, politicians, businesses, "experts", and in social media that we can't really tell who is telling the truth anymore. Thus, we don't know which information to give proper weight when forming our opinions, and we don't know which information to dismiss due to being questionable. Bloobs may well be telling the truth, and evilanne may be telling the truth also. And they probably are - they appear to be genuinely fervent and sincere in their stated positions, and both provide data to back up their views. But there's no way to know the veracity of their sources.
It all comes down to worldview.
For those on evilanne's side: The scientific studies produced by the CDC, FDA, WHO, and others are viewed as suspect because they've seen credible data that undermines those reports, advisory memos, and media interviews - including questionable ethics by those doing the studies. They know that when information is constantly one sided with no room for disagreement or discussion, there's something missing because there's no such thing as absolute consensus in science - yet that's all they are getting from media, politicians, and the medical community at large. They may well feel that it's a step further toward authoritarianism, and those in power are using science, a "medical emergency", and fear as the means by which power is increased and freedom is further restricted (perhaps along with other dynamic social changes such as "woke" culture, etc). They feel like they are being ignored, told to shut up, and conform to a government and wider society they feel doesn't have their best interests at heart. Thus, they resist - or are at least skeptical and concerned. They search for other data to confirm or rebut the information produced by the CDC, FDA, and WHO. For confirmation of the data, all they find are sources that parrot the same talking points, adding nothing new to the conversation.
However, for rebuttal of the CDC, FDA, and WHO, they find ample information that isn't even acknowledged or discussed by those in control (politicians, experts, media, et al) except in dismissive and insulting terms. The rebuttal information appears credible and logical, and so they wonder why the CDC, FDA, and WHO don't take this data into consideration. To those on evilanne's side, the collective effect appears to be a snow job: an intense effort at propaganda, persuasion, and/or deception - especially when coupled to infringe on what they feel are most important: their rights and freedoms. They know that this approach is what past authoritarian regimes did, and because they don't want it to happen in America they put up their defenses and resist. The agree with Thomas Sowell when he says "In the schools and colleges, the intelligentsia have changed the role of education from equipping students with the knowledge and intellectual skills to weigh issues and make up their own minds into a process of indoctrination with the conclusions already reached by the anointed." and "If facts, logic, and scientific procedures are all just arbitrarily 'socially constructed' notions, then all that is left is consensus - more specifically peer consensus, the kind of consensus that matters to adolescents or to a many among the intelligentsia." Their fear motivation: they fear being ruled over by people who they didn't vote for, thus they are on the brink of revoking their consent to be governed by those in charge.
For those on bloobs' side: The scientific studies produced by the CDC, FDA, and WHO are trusted because that's where the acknowledged experts reside. They trust the data by default until conclusively proven otherwise because have a hard time imagining that anybody in those agencies - presumably all scientists and medical professionals sworn to do no harm - have anything else in mind beyond helping people during this crisis. Anybody in those agencies who would have nefarious designs or character flaws would have long ago been weeded out of the system (for the most part). and those few bad apples who remain are easily overridden by the abundance of good apples that surround them. Thus, their data is trustworthy and deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
Up to this point, they don't feel that the data presented by the other side is credible, and therefore the CDC, FDA, and WHO narrative has not been disproven. They may feel that it will take somebody from within that community - and not just one individual, but many individuals, and backed up by media and other authority figures - to disprove the established narrative. They feel that anybody outside the circle of acknowledged experts is not authoritative, therefore their data and science is immediately suspect. This is because if they were legitimate sources, then they would already be included in the circle of experts. And if the circle of experts didn't include the data, it's because they looked at it and found it to be suspect. And if the circle of experts dismissed it, then it's right for those on bloobs' side to dismiss it as well. They may well feel that those who resist are easily led astray by poor critical thinking skills, poor education, or by emotional thinking brought about by placing morals above scientific truth, or are simply being selfish. Their fear motivation: they fear that their life and nation will continue to be disrupted by those who disagree with the accepted and approved consensus, and place them in physical danger through their actions (or lack of actions - i.e. no mask wearing, no vaccines, etc.).
I may or may not have all particulars of each side nailed down, but I think that I've captured some significant portion of what each side may be dealing with - consciously or unconsciously.
The result in our society on this topic - as well as a great many others - is that we don't know how to talk to each other and agree to disagree anymore. We see it as a zero-sum game, where winner take all and losing the debate means losing just a bit more of one's preferred way of life and cherished ideals.
Coming to a compromise is a negotiation, not a one-time token gesture. One doesn't offer a compromise with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, because that's not a compromise - it's an ultimatum. I think that the biggest problem in society is that we don't know how to compromise anymore. It's true that compromise isn't always possible, but with COVID and the vaccines I think there is. We've lost the ability to recognize when it's time to compromise (the COVID vaccine) and when it's not time to compromise. Everybody thinks that their position, moral values, and goals are not subject to compromise (and it partially explains why the divorce rate is high as well).
Examples of each side being unwilling to compromise:
Left unwilling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfVonCvvC04
Right unwilling (pertinent portion starts at about 3:20):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mICxKmCjF-4
TL:DR - In my view, both sides (not just here, but in society in general) are approaching this whole thing badly. One side has learned to trust the conclusions reached by authority and experts without question, and the other side has learned to not trust authority and experts in any meaningful way. Both sides have reached a point where the only compromise they will consider is that which favors 90% of their side, and thus isn't really a compromise at all.
see what I did there 
Sounds like pseudoscience to me. Maybe if you objectively considered the lies from MSM & Dr Fauci over the last year and a half, it might explain why both conservatives and liberals have "distrust in officials" I do agree with your quote by Joseph Goebbels, it appears that you have totally bought the mockingbird media narrative regarding vaccines. 
