[Goose]

It is possible to disagree with what action a politician (or any individual) takes without attacking him personally (even if the attack is nuanced in a way to allow one to plead ignorance). You can also clearly set out what should have been done instead, and why that action would have been preferable. Saying someone is an idiot (even when they are) is different than saying they should have done X instead of doing Y, and why. Beware though, that conterfactual speculation can be difficult to support unless you have actual facts. Saying something is obvious isn't an argument. Saying why it is obvious is.
Unfortunately, essentially all nations have bad situations with this virus that could probably have been avoided if everybody "knew" then what we "know" now (quotes because we really do not know a hell of a lot). It is also important to remember that politics is the art of the possible. Lots of great responses simply would have been politically impossible even if the leaders involved had both the insight and the courage to do so. Look no further than the New York Mayor trying to start a lockdown and being stopped by the Governor twice. I am not saying who was right and who was wrong, because I don't know. I have a strong opinion however. It doesn't require me to disparage either man to disagree with either or both of them.
On this board many often disagree with what coach Shaw (in particular) has done. We mostly do that without attacking the man, although at times that line is crossed unfortunately. It is one thing to say "Shaw shouldn't turtle because ...." as opposed to "Shaw is too g****** stubborn and always turtles too much". IMHO, the first is acceptable, the second is not. Political speech is the same. What, not who. Logos, not ethos or pathos.

[Goose]

It is possible to disagree with what action a politician (or any individual) takes without attacking him personally (even if the attack is nuanced in a way to allow one to plead ignorance). You can also clearly set out what should have been done instead, and why that action would have been preferable. Saying someone is an idiot (even when they are) is different than saying they should have done X instead of doing Y, and why. Beware though, that conterfactual speculation can be difficult to support unless you have actual facts. Saying something is obvious isn't an argument. Saying why it is obvious is.
Unfortunately, essentially all nations have bad situations with this virus that could probably have been avoided if everybody "knew" then what we "know" now (quotes because we really do not know a hell of a lot). It is also important to remember that politics is the art of the possible. Lots of great responses simply would have been politically impossible even if the leaders involved had both the insight and the courage to do so. Look no further than the New York Mayor trying to start a lockdown and being stopped by the Governor twice. I am not saying who was right and who was wrong, because I don't know. I have a strong opinion however. It doesn't require me to disparage either man to disagree with either or both of them.
On this board many often disagree with what coach Shaw (in particular) has done. We mostly do that without attacking the man, although at times that line is crossed unfortunately. It is one thing to say "Shaw shouldn't turtle because ...." as opposed to "Shaw is too g****** stubborn and always turtles too much". IMHO, the first is acceptable, the second is not. Political speech is the same. What, not who. Logos, not ethos or pathos.