The chief problem which arises when we apply our theories to any particular situation in the real world. A theory of essentially complex phenomena must refer to a large number of particular facts; and to derive a prediction from it, or to test it, we have to ascertain all these particular facts. Once we succeeded in this there should be no particular difficulty about deriving testable predictions. But there are way to many unknowable facts, and further the real danger consists in the ascertainment of the particular facts after the events have happened to comport to our theories beforehand.
Example: "OF COURSE Biden's vax mandate was all a ploy, never meant to be implemented."
You don't know that, what you're doing is taking information after events have happened and reinterpreting them to comport to your theories afterwards. You backwash your reasoning to fit current events. This way lies charlatanism and worse. Make your testable theories up PRIOR to events, or, at the very least, stick to analyzing events as they happen or after they have happened to try to ascertain what is the most objective truth.
Predictor or prediction? A good prediction would be more like what you hear in sports..."if Jordan scores 20 or more points, the Bulls win". Or, at least a set of agreed upon assumptions laying out a hypothesis. For example, if X happens, then Y should happen, all else being equal.
All I'm asking for is a little Socratic humility about the limits of our knowledge, but most especially, for people to stop saying that "X was predictable" (when they didn't predict it) or that "they predicted Y" when either (like death and taxes, it was inevitable) or that they reinterpret what actually happened to fit their pre-conceived theories. For example, the Soviet Union falling apart caught all the so-called experts off guard. Later, they said "of course, it was inevitable, since we KNEW containment theory would work and we contained them."