> Certainly mainstream media was actively discounting any argument that this level of disruption was likely.

Where have you been seeing that? The media I've been reading for a year has been anticipating and discussing it. Plus, you've watched this guy and his movement for 8 years, and the GOP for many years before that. How could you not anticipate it? Remember Project 2025 - they wrote it out for you.

People have really put their heads in the sand.

Honestly, I feel they should have gone ahead and published the weekly mortality and morbidity report anyway. When inevitably criticized, they could have pointed out that it's essential public health info and specifically reports on emerging health risks (which is why it hasn't missed an issue in 60 years).

Would this have led to a bunch of people being fired? I would guess yes. But preemptively going along with the diktat practically means that when some sort of continuity resumes, the general public will assume the problem is solved and forget about it, even if the new status quo is objectively worse. The general public has only limited cognitive capacity and one reason Trump has been such a successful politician is that he gives large numbers of people the simplicity and epistemic closure that they crave.

Mainstream media is complicit.

They weren't actively discounting. I heard one mainstream media (maybe 538) say how they thought it was like a 10-20% chance that Trump would actually end democracy in the US. So not likely, but still incredibly scary odds for something so catastrophic.

I think the US public discounted it. 10%? So you mean, 90% won't happen? And even in the 90% case what else unfolds...