Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I don't know that the evidence for anything is "clear", to me anyway.

The inside story of how one scientist concluded covid began with a spillover at Wuhan's wet market | MIT Technology Review
The inside story of how one scientist concluded covid began with a spillover at Wuhan's wet market | MIT Technology Review

There are all sorts of "theories" about its origins out there by purported experts.  I don't know how a layman such as I could form a clear opinion on the topic.  I've proposed another notional idea as to how it could have happened that I have not seen anywhere else.

IMO, the real damage of COVID was politics trumped science.  A lot of trust was broken for the average American.   I think people would have been fine with reasonable changes and updates as we learned more.  Instead, political lines were drawn and decisions were made based on those lines.   I've always had a level of skepticism when it came to our gov't, but I see no reason not to question everything going forward.  

What made it worse is that the snotty elitists who thought they had science on their side, used it as a weapon to bludgeon their opposition who they consistently underestimated as nothing more than a bunch of flat-earthers.

When in fact the science was NOT on their side in many important cases, such as the risks to school-aged children and the risks to adults teaching school-aged children. Within the first 6 months there was plenty of global evidence that these were very low risk factors and that schools could reopen and proceed with some new, reasonable precautions put in place.  But every time their "enemy" from "the other team" suggested this, they responded with "ZOMG you hate children and teachers and you don't understand THE SCIENCE ZOMG THE SCIENCE!"

Denouncing your enemy as "science-deniers" all the while having zero understanding that the science was NOT on your side-- that was peak COVID pandemic lunacy right there.

It has taken my daughter 3 years to recover.

I don't think my son ever will.  It was incredibly destructive for him.

And we went back to school in September of 2020.  Many school districts around the country took a year longer, or even more.

What made it worse is that the snotty elitists who thought they had science on their side, used it as a weapon to bludgeon their opposition who they consistently underestimated as nothing more than a bunch of flat-earthers.

When in fact the science was NOT on their side in many important cases, such as the risks to school-aged children and the risks to adults teaching school-aged children. Within the first 6 months there was plenty of global evidence that these were very low risk factors and that schools could reopen and proceed with some new, reasonable precautions put in place.  But every time their "enemy" from "the other team" suggested this, they responded with "ZOMG you hate children and teachers and you don't understand THE SCIENCE ZOMG THE SCIENCE!"

Denouncing your enemy as "science-deniers" all the while having zero understanding that the science was NOT on your side-- that was peak COVID pandemic lunacy right there.

I get all of this, but I think you're underestimating the fear of the exceptions being blown out of proportion.
Let's say 1 kid out of 10,000 dies from COVID - a tiny number pulled out of my ass.  Let's just set it at that.

For the masses, or at least a majority, that's acceptable.  0.0001%
But perhaps the fear of those dead kids' families being on the news here and there, over and over, was enough to be "too careful." 
Nationally, that 0.0001% = 5,000 dead kids.  Much like Fauci worrying about a mask panic causing him to lie to the public, being fearful of a bunch of crying families who lost their child would perhaps cause a similar thing.  It wouldn't be a lie, but it would be a lack of belief in the public at large to not really wrap their heads around the percentages.

And so, as a lack of faith in the masses reacting with prudence, I get it.  I understand it.  I don't know if it's warranted, I don't know if I agree with it (like with Fauci and the masks), but I understand it.

That's an understandable take.  Perhaps if anyone among the snobby elitist "we know science and you don't" side had positioned it that way, it might have been a bridge to some compassion, some understanding, and some compromise.

But that's not the way they positioned it.  They treated their "enemy" as being insufferably stupid and subhuman, wouldn't entertain talks of moderation at all, and constantly bludgeoned them as being "science deniers" and "child haters."

There's zero chance at reasonable discourse when you feel the need to vilify and dehumanize those who disagree with your opinion.

And it led to a massive and at least somewhat avoidable catastrophe.

Maybe that's what they wanted.