[raz32dust]

This is again missing the point. You cannot assume such things when lives are at risk. From the point of view of a leader, they knew the following:

- There is a deadly virus out there that is spreading very quickly.

- People who are not showing symptoms are spreading it.

- Community transmission has started

Given these data points, if one leader decided to lockdown sooner and another decided to wait it out, I think it is fair to say that the leader who picked lockdown made the right decision. Yes, if you add an additional data point that 50% of population is already infected, sure, you could argue that maybe it is doing more harm than good. But there is no evidence for this, and this almost certainly was not true when the lockdown decision was made in Washington and California.