Two points:
Regarding the word blame, I tried to immediately edit it to "fault" but a storm knocked out my internet. It's a fine line, and I think the article itself in its conclusions was more oriented toward "blame", and so that's likely why that particular word first came to mind.
However, I thought "fault" worked better bc it seems to be more simply about identifying causes for why something didn't work - identifying breaks in the line so to speak. But all that said, maybe "fault" is even still too much a loaded term.
The article was published by a group that focuses on government failure in general, so in that sense it's expected that this is the angle they would illuminate.
And as far as
"Don't be so quick to judge others who didn't "spare" you this epidemic." - I don't know if this was a general "you" or a "you" jab specific to me, but I cited the article I pulled the info from, and I included a note that said that I didn't necessarily agree with the conclusion//opinion drawn by the article's author.
The journalist who wrote the article is Ronald Bailey, and his contact info and bio are here:
http://reason.com/people/ronald-bailey/all. Comments are also allowed on the article itself.
I shared this info because I had not known about the history of the development of tests, treatments, and vaccines, and I thought PR readers might be interested since these topics are often mentioned on PR. I thought these facts were of interest.
I included the quote about government failure because government failure is often mentioned in regard to ME/CFS, Lyme (borrelia), and HIV/AIDS, and so I felt like this could be part of a larger problematic pattern with health agencies, and infectious disease especially.
Again though, I added that I myself could not in good faith say that the heaviest weight (not sole weight) should be assigned to / carried by government agencies. This was one opinion in one paper. I'm sure other sources are focusing on pharma primarily or the history of Western intervention (better word??) in Africa or whatever, etc.
It's hard to find media that covers events from all possible angles - and maybe this topic is too complex for anything other than books. Imo, an article like this represents a piece of the information puzzle but is incomplete. Someone else could have written the same article but ended with very different conclusions/opinions.
In addition to the facts on social issues and the development history of tests/treatments/vaccines, I think the article is also of value in understanding or keeping tabs on how the media and/or varied political parties are handling/interpreting events.
