So, again, the experts have been struggling with how to balance economic harm vs disease harm. On some of these, it’s not that the experts are wrong, it’s that they’re still unclear or they are weighing competing claims.
I think initially we didn’t have a handle on this in the US. Could we pull off testing, tracking, shutdowns, and safety measures enough to totally stop the disease? That would have been the best thing, but given geography, human behavior and inexperience, we couldn’t do that. We also didn’t want an Italy/Wuhan style overloading of hospitals and pileup of bodies. I have friends in NJ and it’s grim there. We did manage to slow the speed and stop overwhelming hospitals, but we’re very much in the first wave of things.
So now at least for the US the challenge is to figure out what’s possible and what the risks are. Experts also know that economic catastrophe kills people, etc., etc. Maybe we’ll find ways to do phased openings, or tweak school attendance, etc., etc. Some of this the experts don’t know now. But they did a pretty good job on guessing spread/death rates and recommending good interventions vs bad intervention (chloroquine, drinking clorox, etc.). We’re also learning about ways to slow the spread (masks?), offer treatment (check oxygen levels, recognize that intubation has a high death rate), or find work arounds (online work and school).
I don’t really know what you’re arguing? Are you arguing that there’s no way to find evidence about what works? Are you just distrustful of anyone with MD or PhD at the end of their name? Which contrarian advice do you think was right and which expert advice was wrong?