The AI verdict is correct in its core assessment, but it misses the deeper tension between public health messaging and societal reaction. The claim isn’t just about numbers—it’s about how those numbers were framed, and how that framing influenced collective behavior. The AI focused on disproving the 'cold' label, but didn’t grapple with the fact that even a serious threat can be mismanaged in a way that feels manipulative. People didn’t just fear the virus; they feared the uncertainty, the shifting guidelines, the loss of control. That fear wasn’t baseless, but it was amplified by a system that often failed to communicate clearly. The verdict is factually sound, but it doesn’t fully address the emotional and psychological dimensions that made the public so receptive to manipulation.