Grading on a curve assumes we knew how many people would die when the investment was made then... and the same for the effectiveness of the vaccine? If you clai

Grading on a curve assumes we knew how many people would die when the investment was made then... and the same for the effectiveness of the vaccine? If you claim you knew that the US would be so atrociously bad at dealing with this in March (and I bought N95 masks at the beginning of Feb plus I'll offer free advice on Wuhan hotels for foreigners), or that you knew how effective a vaccine was before it was tested in humans then please share your insight. If none of the first vaccines were more effective than a placebo, then your $Bs would be wasted until the one 10 years later was developed. Wear a mask, test and contract trace, or find some other solution is a better investment. We invest in the world before we know the answer to things, so we look for answers as quickly as there's ROI, if that's whataboutism then you have a new definition. Putting together distribution and testing take time no matter how quick the vaccine development is and those are hard parallel problems, whatever the answer to the vaccine effectiveness question is. There are ways that optimize the time to deliver those as well (mass inoculation, challenge testing), but I don't see you suggesting either of those. Note that we still don't know long term consequences of the vaccines (auto-immune responses were and still are a possibility). I don't expect them to be bad, but then I didn't expect 20% of the US population to deny a viral infection was real and/or the germ theory of disease.