I have no idea who you are or what your viewpoint is, other than the words you just posted, but I would like to ask if you actually will find out the facts that matter in this case.

A contest if you will:
Group A deals best with this current problem.
Group B deals second best.
Group C deals very well with this problem.
Group D deals well.
Group E is roughly halfway in the contest.
Group F dealt with this problem poorly.
Group G dealt very poorly.
Group H dealt almost as badly as is humanly possible.
Group J dealt measurably (accurately) the worst.

What is your criteria for judging the winners and losers, please be precise?

@Josf-Kelley
I understand that. However would you carry out an experiment on a subject that is already engaged in another experiment that may distort results.

Judging results ? The death toll and control. The fewer deaths and the quickest to limit the spread Wins.
(I have a dog in this fight. I had pneumonia as a baby. SIx months old. As a result I am susceptible to lung infections and suffer more then average.) I'm keen to get this sorted. The quicker the better.

@LesMahagow

"However would you carry out an experiment on a subject that is already engaged in another experiment that may distort results."

Who is carrying out an experiment? I understand the basics of political economy and the scientific method.

Decisions based upon assumptions are examples of something called gambling. So the odds in a gamble can be calculated if the game is understood, if the gambler assumes that the gambler has a chance in hell, that gambler is known as a mark.

The reason I posted the link has to do with competition between isolatable groups of people.

If no one on earth can be isolated from an attack (such as a really effective fraud), then to be isolated someone would have to live on another planet.

Some food for thought:

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

[amazon.com]