Correct, imagine if they had recognized not having enough information and chose not to form an opinion that needed changing once more evidence was gathered?
Imagine if they had chosen not to be a loudmouth (their words), and thereby adding to the cacophony of uselessness that happened around that time?
The problem isn't that they reached the wrong conclusion, it's how __CONFIDENT__ they were in that conclusion despite NO ONE knowing enough about covid at the time.
Do you think that every single facet of the response we had to COVID was correct and useful?
The evidence does suggest that better testing could have reduced the death rate while also allowing for gentler, more calibrated responses.
Near zero? Not in the US - but in the places that DID achieve that feat, testing was critical.
You are being absurdly harsh. Many experts have been trained by decades of "peacetime" to be conservative with their assumptions and requests. Just think back to "stand six feet apart" and "you can take your mask off while eating" to see why that is a problem.
Imagine if they had chosen not to be a loudmouth (their words), and thereby adding to the cacophony of uselessness that happened around that time?
The problem isn't that they reached the wrong conclusion, it's how __CONFIDENT__ they were in that conclusion despite NO ONE knowing enough about covid at the time.