[autoliteInline]

>All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced.

I think it matters quite a lot, but not for scientific reasons.

If the point of origin is sloppy lab practice (maybe it's impossible to not be sloppy) and everyone lied about it, I want to know everything. Trust is a hard thing to re-gain but I really want to know where we all stand. Realistic calibration of your position vs. power centers is always a good thing.

Personally I don't think responses were particularly botched, although it's tempting to think so for other political reasons. It's likely more a lack of real knowledge by anyone on what really makes for good public policy and the inability to do what it takes in any case.

[aught]

> …I want to know everything. Trust is a hard thing to re-gain but I really want to know where we all stand. Realistic calibration of your position vs. power centers is always a good thing.

I agree but that trust was never there. It has always been the case that the public cannot be trusted with information or full information that might cause any panic not because of the panic behavior itself but due to panic behaviors destabilizing markets. The former president had explicit selfish reasons for the direction but he also used it as a political tool attempting to use the panic in his favor and limit its influence: But both types of behavior are inappropriate and counterproductive to fighting a pandemic or any public emergency

[autoliteInline]

>I agree but that trust was never there.

It largely was but misplaced. Walter Cronkite was never truthful, the Joint Chiefs of Staff rarely had your interest in mind. Public policy has always been people scrabbling for status while feigning morality.