I think the verdict is too quick to dismiss the broader critique of how information was handled. The claim isn’t just about mortality numbers—it’s about the public’s emotional and psychological response, and how that response was shaped. The AI focused on refuting the 'cold' label, but didn’t engage with the idea that fear and misinformation can distort public perception, even when the threat is real. People were scared, and that fear was amplified by messaging that wasn’t always clear or consistent. The problem wasn’t just the data—it was how it was communicated, and how that communication influenced behavior. The verdict didn’t address that nuance.