[mattcwilson]

Nonsense.

Yes, at the very earliest part of the pandemic, we had no data. We had to prepare for the worst.

Very quickly, we started to see the relative impact of different measures taken in different jurisdictions, we learned about the relative impact of the disease on different age groups and populations, and we started having tools and strategies for detecting, tracing, and inhibiting the disease.

These became the priors that informed (or should have informed) the evolving decision-making process for disease response. But instead, in many cases, we saw a ton of inertia on many fronts, due to fear, political face-saving / ass-covering, or willful ignorance.

That’s the part I take issue with. It wasn’t “the” right decision, it was “an” early and uninformed decision, followed by many opportunities for additional, more informed, better decisions.

[ryanklee]

Not going to reply other than to say characterizing my comment as nonsense is unfairly dismissive.

Be a kind interlocutor if you want dispassionate, reasoned engagement.

[mattcwilson]

Sure, I respect that. If it seems like I don’t think you’re a good person, my apologies. I am enjoying having this debate with you and wish you the best.

But I stand by the assertion that your previous comment does not make sense.