Rather than instant ad hominem, why not address the objective facts?

I'm addressing what I perceive to be a false narrative--contrary to that popular false narrative, our early response was timely, and effective. I explained why I concluded that, and presented data supporting.

If you think I've twisted something, say what and explain how it's wrong.

I haven't actually read the article yet, so I don't have an opinion about that. I have however, due to both the necessity of my business and that I have close friends and relatives who have been on the front lines (some in the medical profession) of this in Europe and the USA, been following the developments closely from the beginning.

I really don't care to spend my time discussing - much less arguing - "facts' with someone who feels the necessity of hiding their identity rather than standing up with integrity and owning their opinion and point of view. Context is meaningful in most discussions as well as when evaluating "facts" - and the perception of "facts" - especially in a situation such as this where facts change as more is learned and evaluated.

I spent a couple hours responding to your notions about the second amendment, fishing out and thumbing through The Federalist Papers, if that's any consolation.

I'm as boggled by your conclusions as you seem to be by mine.

The difference, so far, is that I can cite factual support for mine, whereas you can only express your astonishment someone might not agree with reasoning you are not able to explain.

That could be, I have no data one way or the other on that.

It's not surprising the virus is highly infectious--we were funding the Wuhan lab to conduct Gain of Function research, selectively breeding hyper-infectious coronaviruses. Fauci fought for and defended that research, as a valuable scientific inquest into viral transmission (and eventually, pandemic defense).

I don't believe the Chinese released this virus intentionally. But when all's said and done I suspect we'll find Frankenstein was born of legitimate research in that lab, then escaped when someone left the barn doors open.

And there's your difficulty--you're looking for who to believe, rather than looking at the actual data and concluding for yourself.

I also disagree that we need "years" to decide whether the U.S. or Europe had greater initial spread and deaths. That's silly. We have the data.

The popular press arguments cherry-picked European countries to compare against the whole United States, conveniently ignoring the European disasters, and eliding over the fact that the U.S. problem was then not national, it was highly centralized to New York and a couple other disaster states. We could cherry-pick states and make our continent look great, too.

(I'm never sure if the popular press is doing that intentionally, or if they're simply oblivious.)

That's a strawman. First, those claims have been refuted--the capability was reorganized, not compromised, not disbanded.

Second, that doesn't rescue the narrative (that the United States' response was defective).

Whatever we did and whoever did or didn't do it--whatever we did, for many, many weeks, resulted in much lower infection rates and fewer deaths than Europe.

So that simply does not support the narrative that the U.S.' early response was defective.

Subsequently, the virus has continued to spread, as viruses do. I consider that obvious and inevitable. I personally expect, when all's said and done, the infection rates will roughly equalize the world over.

I was being concise and clear in my observation of your posts here. Once you venture away from your MAGA narrative (and the Wuhan/ Fauci conspiracy theory) you are only left with the tone of one who has a deluded belief in their higher value in interpreting the significance of events happening in the world around them.
I hear most of your opinions echoed on the factory floor around me after returning to work from furlough two weeks ago. So I am not impressed by your counter arguments to knapp and fischbobber. You're tedious and a plagiarist offered recycled narratives as you own objective truths.