I think putting both viewpoints down basically implied he was impartial and and talking of those who had an agenda.

It helps reduce verbiage.

Calling “stay in lockdown” a panicked response seems like picking a side to me.

But I didn’t call it that. I called lying about what was happening in MI in order to make people think things were way worse than they really are, the “panic now” side.

Do you not agree that such lies are bad? Perhaps you think the end justifies the means, but in that case, you might want to consider what telling lies does to the public’s perception of your trustworthiness when you tell them it’s necessary to stay in lockdown.

And then there’s all the real reasons not to panic. Because hoarding is bad for everybody. Because failing to seek necessary medical care for your ruptured appendix because you’re afraid of getting Covid-19 as a 28-year old would be pretty bad. And on and on.

What possible good do the lies I described above accomplish?