Maybe it's a bit too strong. I do think there was a real problem with having medical professional in charge when their discipline and expertise were not the per

Maybe it's a bit too strong. I do think there was a real problem with having medical professional in charge when their discipline and expertise were not the perfect match to the real world problems we were facing. Their policies might have been based on "settled science" (e.g. research on respiratory diseases from the 70's) but I think that wasn't really the appropriate way to handle things as the pandemic developed. It might have been appropriate for day 1 but officials IMO lacked the ability to adapt to the changing reality. The actual policies varied a lot between countries which is why I qualified my statement. At the end of the day, you can be critical without being conspiratorial. I'm open to new information that supports the idea that the way health officials handled the pandemic was optimal but given that different jurisdiction gave conflicting advice so that seems counter evidence. There are many specific examples that come to mind. If we can't critique the response then there's not going to be any learning. Experts and science are not perfect. Again, point taken and maybe I'm a bit too strong, but that's what I'm trying to get at. EDIT: i.e. I've no issue with people that are being critical after examining the evidence. These people are not conspiracy theorists and that process is a healthy part of making progress in science and policy. That's not the same thing as people saying Bill Gates put 4G chips in the vaccines or some other mysterious behind the scenes forces or conspiracies.