The PRC and WHO warned the world not to overreact. Many criticized governments for overreacting. Then the extent of the pandemic became clear. Governments were criticized by some for not reacting earlier. Models began showing potentially huge numbers of fatalities. 1/8

Now there seems to be general consensus that although governments acted late, the fatalities were tragic, they did not hit the extremes forecast so perhaps the government was too aggressive. The fact that appropriate action may be the reason the extremes were avoided 2/8

is lost on many anxious to find any reason to criticize. It's important to understand that in their early stages epidemics grow exponentially. This makes them extremely difficult to manage. Consider a case were you start with 100 cases and you estimate the monthly exponential 3/8

growth rate r to be 2.0 +/- 0.5. After 3 months you will have 100*e^(3*r) cases. At the bottom of the range that's ~2,000 cases; at the middle of the range ~40,000 cases; at the top of the range ~181,000. One month later those numbers are ~40,000, ~298,000, and ~2,203,000. 4/8

That's one hell of a range, nonlinearity with a vengeance. If we're not sure if the fatality rate is 1% or 3%, then the combined uncertainties at 4 months yields from ~400 to ~66,000 deaths. There are many fair criticisms we can level, but too much is partisan 5/8

posturing justifying or attacking depending upon whose performance is in question. The New York Times has been one of the worst. If we fail to understand the dynamics of such "nonlinear" threats , then a decisive, early, and successful intervention will seem like 6/8

an overreaction. And small errors or missteps in execution, which in a complex effort will always be there, can have huge impacts that will require quick and cooperative action. Instead of trying to poison each other's well we should shut up, help each other, and be ready 7/8

to cut each other slack in dealing with an extraordinarily difficult problem. 8/8