2 ms·
It could have been differently in which case people would have complained why we hadn’t been more cautious. This might be a shallow dismissal but hindsight is 2
by _Microft 2y ago
It could have been differently in which case people would have complained why we hadn’t been more cautious. This might be a shallow dismissal but hindsight is 20/20.
- dent9876543 2y agoI don't know. For some, hindsight is saying that it was a big deal. You'd expect that group to be resolute that early access was needed. It could easily have been offered to the elderly. That's pretty clear cut. For sure, if it had gone bad, there would have been naysayers ... but that could have been mitigated by allowing individuals to choose for themselves, and restricting early access to the elderly. The other group who didn't think it so pressing could easily have been satisfied to wait. So although hindsight is 20/20, it's pretty clear that Public Health acted against both groups' interests here.
- NavinF 2y agoNo, we should always criticize decisions that lead to more people dying. People who claim "we should have been more cautious" should also be criticized. Both for being spineless, and for leading to more deaths over time.