> In both cases, the information also included extremely rapid uncontrolled spread, a much higher death rate than the flu, and overwhelming available medical resources.

A high death rate in the beginning isn't meaningful. Early on during the Swine Flu, mortality was estimated at 0.5%[1], later estimates were ten times lower[2].

This was described as the "tip of the iceberg" phenomenon in a Q&A on a Harvard website[3] as late as early March. That section was later removed.

As for "uncontrolled spread", we've all seen footage of masses of people storming the hospitals in an entirely unsanitary manner, we've seen people getting dragged off the streets, for the crime of having an elevated temperature, then getting force-quarantined in open halls with no regards to safety. If this was an overwhelmed healthcare system, it wasn't clear that the blame could be put on the virus.

> This was known for a very long time; as far back as early January in China.

It wasn't, but hindsight is 20/20. In mid-January there were less than 500 confirmed cases and no good estimate on the number of unconfirmed cases. Less than thirty people had died, over the course of two months in which likely a comparable number of people in Wuhan died from Influenza, but didn't make the news.

> I'm not sure calling the people who were correct "alarmists" is aging well.

They were the alarmists at the time and will forever have been so. Some of their predictions may have turned out correct, others may yet turn out correct, others may turn out incorrect.

The Swine Flu, as predicted, could have killed 120 million people[4], but then it didn't, even without any shutdowns.

> And you still are apparently dismissing it as 'luck', that they were correct, because you state their information was no better.

Of course their information wasn't any better. Everyone had access to the same information. The difference is in its interpretation, not so much based on luck but personal disposition. Again, not all virologists made the same dire predictions.

> I seem to recall predictions of crazy R0 values for coronavirus back in early January. I, too, thought it was probably at the "overdone" side of things, again, in early January, before we had more information.

Yes, you saw predictions of crazy R0 values that you yourself weren't ready to believe. At the time it wasn't solid information, and it never will have been.

> But the picture started becoming much more clear by early February, and certainly mid-February.

By mid-February, less than 2000 people had died worldwide from COVID-19, compared to at least 10,000 deaths from Influenza in the US alone. I'm not saying the "flu comparison" is a valid comparison, but at that point in time, it was still allowed to be made, even by experts.

> And we continued to do NOTHING in the US, at least into mid-March.

Neither did most European countries. Even in Italy, there was no nation-wide shutdown until March 9th.

> Wrong.

Wrong how? Your comment is a good example of an inaccurate historical account, as written by those who ended up on "the right side".

[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2840.full

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784967/

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20200304132800/https://www.healt...

[4] https://metro.co.uk/2009/04/26/swine-flu-could-kill-up-to-12...