> Yes, that was probably the only objectively correct thing to say at the time. Maybe, but had they been less objectively correct and worked based on unproven

> Yes, that was probably the only objectively correct thing to say at the time. Maybe, but had they been less objectively correct and worked based on unproven assumptions, harm could've been prevented. > If they advised drastic measures at the time, people similar to you would have crucified them as alarmist and disregarded any advice they may have had. Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that it would've still been the right call. They would've been vindicated very soon after. As it stands, the experts made the wrong call. I don't fault them for it at all. I'm just pointing it out as an example that sometimes even the experts get it wrong and therefore being suspicious of expert opinion is always warranted. > I doubt they would call something a "serious public health concern" and recommend doing nothing. Well yes, that's me being sarcastic. They didn't explicitly recommend to do nothing, but they didn't recommend to do anything either. So that's what was done. Nothing. Same difference, perhaps?