There has been a lot of “mother knows best” going on during this thing. Asking basic questions gets you quickly branded as dangerous and a pariah.

I mean, why has the media never asked politicians to produce some kind of end state to restrictions? Why have politicians and “experts” been allowed to just extend things and “wait two more weeks” without articulating a clearly defined goal?

Why has the media never questioned high cycle rates for PCR tests?

Why has the media constantly downplayed good news?

Alas....

> why has the media never asked politicians to produce some kind of end state to restrictions? Why have politicians and “experts” been allowed to just extend things and “wait two more weeks” without articulating a clearly defined goal?

These are already in place. Most panels are looking for trajectories of illness and hospital capacity. Note, I have found these metric-based plans much easier to find for certain states: https://covid19.ca.gov/safer-economy/ https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/covid19/Taskforce%2... (see page 9) https://forward.ny.gov/metrics-guide-reopening-new-york (see "Diagnostic Testing and Contact Tracing Capacity") https://www.mass.gov/doc/reopening-massachusetts-may-18-2020...

> Why has the media never questioned high cycle rates for PCR tests?

The turnaround time of testing? I'm not sure what you are bringing up here.

> Why has the media constantly downplayed good news?

This isn't a covid problem. For a variety of reasons, the media downplays good news across the board. They have a vested interest in keeping viewers "tuned in" to problems.

> why has the media never asked politicians to produce some kind of end state to restrictions?

Except perhaps for a brief period at the beginning of restrictions, every state imposing restrictions, at least that I am aware of, did so with a concrete set of milestones which governed step-down.

The state I'm living in has gone through at least 3 major completely different reopening plans. None of those revisions included a full return to pre-pandemic normal. None of those plans were followed at all.

There is no excuse to not have a fixed set of KPI's with a well defined end-state that includes a full return to normal. "Science", even rapidly changing science, doesn't tell you what KPI's to use. If the goal is hospital capacity, great... use that. If you can't formulate and articulate the goal, including a full return to normal, maybe you shouldn't have imposed the restrictions in the first place.

Honestly the fact that the plans keep shifting lead me to believe that the governor isn't actually looking at the data at all but is instead trying to feel the room to see when it is politically "safe" to fully reopen. A strong indicator that the time to reopen was a long time ago...

> There is no excuse to not have a fixed set of KPI's with a well defined end-state that includes a full return to normal.

To say that someone "has no excuse" only makes sense once you have at least as much understanding as they do of the context in which they are making decisions. Anger makes it easy to ignore others' perspective. Anger makes it easy to fool yourself into thinking you are holding others accountable skillfully.

I think the journalists heard the nuanced explanation from the experts on the mask recommendations, instead of the simplified one that is criticized in the article. Journalists have biases and a media diet too, so it's possible they heard the whole story from the start and didn't see the controversy.

Personally, I'm surprised this article suggests Fauci lied, because I definitely remember reading about the full explanation behind the CDC's recommendation against public mask wearing way back in March 2020. I remember reading that the recommendation against public mask wearing was mainly due to supply chain concerns, and that the general public should use improvised masks instead, if they can.

...maybe a lot of people only heard the short soundbites instead of the full story...? I'm just speculating here.

Yeah that's a good point. And I may be a little bit guilty of scapegoating Fauci for the official response generally. But while that full explanation was out there in March I think of Feburary as being the most confusing time when advice not to wear a mask was most prevalent. From a CDC post at the end of February: "Only healthcare professionals caring for COVID-19 patients, people who are sick with COVID-19, or in some cases people caring for patients who are sick with COVID-19 need precautions like a facemask to help limit their risk of spreading COVID-19."

If felt like we lived through four ages in as many months at the beginning of last year.

Also would like to mention that someone dug up one of Fauci's interviews back in March 2020 about his recommendation on masks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26623260

The CDC post is in line with Fauci's recommendation. My understanding is that the original recommendation was to avoid a shortage of masks during a critical period of the pandemic.

Things changed quickly in February. I was in Europe for 3 weeks January into February and things were 100% business as usual. Then there started to be worrisome signs as February went on but I was at an IT industry event first week in March with no handshaking and wiping of surfaces but no otherwise distancing. (And then things shut down and had to change flights back home.)

I seem to recall a statement that he (or it may have been a similarly placed official) said that he only told the public what he thought they were "ready" to hear -- e.g. that he knew the pandemic would last 18 months but said a few weeks or a few months to keep stringing people along.

it's not surprising given who the media works for. all those editors, pundits and talking heads don't pay themselves. and defying the dominant mediopolitical narrative is a good way to lose your job, even if you're right in the long run.

In the absence of Godzilla rising from the sea, this is the biggest media gold mine possibly ever.