>Because he didn't argue those positions because they were sensible responses to COVID, he argued those positions because he was reactionary. You're impugning

>Because he didn't argue those positions because they were sensible responses to COVID, he argued those positions because he was reactionary. You're impugning intent on this man, because you don't like his politics. You don't even know what his reasons were, do you. >Coincidentally, at the time, they were the best methods we had to control against covid. No. Those were not the best methods. It was never a choice of "Lockdows or no-lockdowns", even back then. We had 100 years of experience fighting respiratory pandemics, that we threw out and decided to follow the Chinese 'zero-covid' policy (which was an abject failure for us, and them). The traditional approach was a targeted policy. Protect (or even lockdown) high-risk populations, and let low-risk population live their lives commensurate to their risk tolerance. Sweden, one of the few western nations, to adopt this, was HEAVILY criticized for this, for no good reason. The idea that we would lockdown the entire population (healthy and/or low-risk) was something we made up on the spot. It wasn't based on any science.