I don't necessarily see it that way. In a scenario where it

Posted on: March 13, 2020 at 22:14:54 CT

turns out to be less lethal than they expect, or perhaps less contagious, or if they find better ways of treating those infected... or even if it dies down because of the weather change and more people are outside, and then a vaccine or two are found preventing the death tolls some fear, the response could still be reasonable under some circumstances in my opinion.

Looking at it after the fact can be a form of Monday morning quarterbacking. Decisions have to be made in real time with imperfect information. It is unfair to judge decisions in those circumstances using a standard involving additional information that came to light later.

If the police hear a burglar alarm we expect them to respond in an appropriate fashion. That would include racing to the scene, perhaps with guns drawn when they get there and maybe even stopping someone jogging away from the building. If it turns out that it was a false alarm it wouldn't be fair to call them morons for reacting as they did.

It seems to me that in this case the decision makers should be judged for how they reacted to the facts available to them and how they used the resources available to them. Others should be judged on how well they collected and evaluated information and passed it along.

If people deliberately hid or worse yet falsified information they should be held to account. Ditto for those who performed poorly in their jobs.

But if it turns out that they took precautions that were not necessary given how things actually played out over time I don't think that necessarily means they were stupid or did a bad job.