In an emergent situation, you'll never understand all the data in time. Imagine a loved one that's hurt who calls you for help after a crash. You could spend time trying to figure out their symptoms and their feelings, probing them for more information to make an accurate decision so that you don't have to actually waste the time to go over to them physically. Or you could just go over immediately and potentially waste time when it turns out your loved one would have been just fine without you. Most people choose the latter.

There's a reason emergency services dispatchers have such a stressful job, they're making these decisions all the time based on very limited amounts of data. Unfortunately we're all living in a situation right now where we're making emergency decisions as new information emerges.

Wouldn't a closer analogy be a loved one has a crash, so you immediately force everyone else to wear driving masks to prevent crashes?

'we're all living in a situation right now where we're making emergency decisions...'

Not me, but you seem to be hooked on fear. May you find some peace in life.

> Not me, but you seem to be hooked on fear. May you find some peace in life.

This is an unnecessary insult. You could have left it with "I'm comfortable not treating this as an emergency situation." I'm not sure what you gained from this post. Hopefully you got the performative internet points you were looking for.

What's the alternative to setting policy on preliminary data? Are you proposing something like "government should never react to anything until 12 months have passed since it started happening." So something like COVID just cannot be responded to initially?

It has been nearly two years and government MSHA hasn't mandated anything to specifically change for workers. The inspectors did reduce the small group chats, which I suspect is going to be counter-productive for injury counts in the medium term. Someone senior in MSHA has big stones for not getting on the safety theater bandwagon like OSHA did.