[mattcwilson]

It’s not, though. “Dilemma” implies only two possibilities, but “varying degrees” implies many. This argument is incoherent.

There were lots of alternate futures, ranging from “the whole world, everywhere, utterly locked down schools for the past 2+ years” to “the whole world, everywhere, utterly refused to lock down schools for the past 2+ years”, and everywhere in between in terms of which schools, which policies, when, and for how long.

We can definitely talk about what sets of choices would have had better outcomes.

[croon]

Merriam Webster [0] disagrees with your limiting definition (while etymologically correct). And even if it hadn't, it doesn't affect the coherence of the argument.

> We can definitely talk about what sets of choices would have had better outcomes.

Sure, and again, after the fact.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dilemma

[mattcwilson]

Handwringing cowardice and whimpering inaction got people killed in this pandemic.

Refusing to take action as soon as data were available to justify better methods got people killed.

(Thanks for the link, btw. Had no idea “dildo” dates to the 16th century. The things you learn...)

[croon]

> Handwringing cowardice and whimpering inaction got people killed in this pandemic.

That I have no idea if you would have wanted more lockdown or less lockdown or more masks or less masks, etc, etc, should indicate the difficulty in decision making.

But for the record, I'm not defending any decisions made by any government, I'm merely defending the difficulty of the process, and they will be dragged for any decision they make regardless because, again, there is no win scenario in a pandemic.