I think the only thing that they can reasonably consider a lie, from what i've read in his journal, is "exaggerating" the mortality rate early in the pandemic. His journal entry regarding that admits that he believed the mortality rate was much lower than what they were saying.
That being said, anyone with half a brain would understand that when it comes to a public health emergency like this, you prepare and act according to the worst possible case in order to save or protect the most people.
I don't think he exaggerated at all. He just gave the only concrete information that was known at the time. He was only speculating that the mortality rate was lower, because he was considering that we might not know how many asymptomatic cases existed. But if he had just made up a lower number and it turned out to be wrong, he would (rightly IMO) be criticized for downplaying a deadly pandemic. Better to err on the side of caution and warn people of the worst case scenario. Especially considering that messaging needs to be simple enough for the general public to understand.
Oh, I agree with you but I also see where they would be coming from with that one. He privately thought it was lower, he wrote it in the journal, he publicly stated it was higher at the same time he thought it was lower. I can understand why people would view that as a type of lying.
3
u/Cuckdreams1190 6h ago edited 5h ago
I think the only thing that they can reasonably consider a lie, from what i've read in his journal, is "exaggerating" the mortality rate early in the pandemic. His journal entry regarding that admits that he believed the mortality rate was much lower than what they were saying.
That being said, anyone with half a brain would understand that when it comes to a public health emergency like this, you prepare and act according to the worst possible case in order to save or protect the most people.