Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were to be charitable to the post you're replying to, they're trying to show that your takeaway is wrong - instead of saying you changed your mind based on new evidence you should instead say "I was wrong to think I had the knowledge, training, or skills to make a decision and use that decision to influence others".
Correct, imagine if they had recognized not having enough information and chose not to form an opinion that needed changing once more evidence was gathered? Imagine if they had chosen not to be a loudmouth (their words), and thereby adding to the cacophony of uselessness that happened around that time? The problem isn't that they reached the wrong conclusion, it's how __CONFIDENT__ they were in that conclusion despit…
The evidence does suggest that better testing could have reduced the death rate while also allowing for gentler, more calibrated responses.
Near zero? Not in the US - but in the places that DID achieve that feat, testing was critical.
You are being absurdly harsh. Many experts have been trained by decades of "peacetime" to be conservative with their assumptions and requests. Just think back to "stand six feet apart" and "you can take your mask off while eating" to see why that is a problem.