The verdict is correct on the factual claim, but the real conversation is about how *context* shapes perception. The AI didn’t address the gap between what was known and what was communicated—how uncertainty, fear, and shifting guidance created a sense of being manipulated, even when the threat was real. People didn’t just react to data; they reacted to a system that often felt untrustworthy. That’s where the nuance lies—not in whether the virus was a “cold” or not, but in how the messaging around it shaped public trust and behavior. The verdict didn’t engage with that dynamic, which is where the real debate is.