It sounds like me that you are taking exception to the abundance of caution displayed by public health officials which resulted in this agonizing economic downturn.
However, in the face of incomplete information, isn't erring on the side of caution the right way to proceed? If they had underplayed this, and had the mortality rate really been 3-4%, then you would have both millions dead AND economic devastation.
The scientific consensus is by definition a dynamic thing, ever changing in the face of increasing evidence. And thankfully so.
However, in the face of incomplete information, isn't erring on the side of caution the right way to proceed? If they had underplayed this, and had the mortality rate really been 3-4%, then you would have both millions dead AND economic devastation.
The scientific consensus is by definition a dynamic thing, ever changing in the face of increasing evidence. And thankfully so.