> No authority I’m aware of ever suggested this was a “doomsday” virus You might want to look up some quotes by Italy's experts, who called this virus a "mons

> No authority I’m aware of ever suggested this was a “doomsday” virus You might want to look up some quotes by Italy's experts, who called this virus a "monster" (side note: I hate how the media turns "novel coronavirus" into "magic virus that transcends biology"), or so the press reported. The doom and gloom communication has always been the key point from the scientific committees here. > Mainstream epidemiologists, virologists etc. are not just a bunch of schmucks who are having a go at analysis because they’ve got time on their hands Disclaimer: the below part only applies to what I see first hand in my country (Italy) No, they're people, like everyone else. And unfortunately, they're bound to make mistakes like everyone else. Note, I'm not saying that they're wrong by default. But some did totally downplay the risk in February and now they act like they knew everything all along. Some of them even made questionable public statements on areas of research they know little about (investigation of thrombosis in lungs; convalescent plasma therapy). The fact that scientific research is very compartmentalized leads to interesting statements that sound like Murray Gell-Mann amnesia. Most of them talk about vaccines; few if any talk about the drugs in development (but in the interest of fairness, I'd probably do the opposite if I had to speak, as I'm far more trained in pharmacology than in virology). I reserve skepticism even if agree with their statements. They're bound to get many more things right than lay people in the subject matter, but that doesn't mean they're always right. In particular, one must be wary when some do statements on public policy that are not their subject matter.