Yes, I agree with Larry.
I think partly what we're seeing here is the process of science playing out. We start with a lot of uncertainty and we make a best guess based on the closest parallels we have. There is a real challenge in public health communication in providing that information in a way that is authoritative without being overconfident or without being misleading. I don't think, frankly, that much of the world has done a good enough job of communicating that uncertainty.
As we understand more about the science of the disease, the recommendations evolve and change. I think that's what you're seeing. We are finding that to control COVID, we need to do things that are different from what we needed to do to control SARS, because SARS did not have the kind of asymptomatic transmission we're seeing here, and it is different from what we needed to control flu, but at the beginning, we had no way of knowing that. Recommendations were based on the closest known parallels we had. As we gather more data and more information, those recommendations have evolved.
I think that is a difficult thing. If you're a member of the public and paying only partial attention to this, and you see those changing recommendations without really understanding the rationale behind them, it is confusing and it does undermine trust.