Talk:Sonia Y. Angell

Michael Lewis' book?
Do we just assume he is wrong? He suggests that she did not want to hear about the pandemic and certainly did not want to lean. But reading Lewis can be frustrating. It feels as though there is an ocean beneath the situation but his writing is about the shiny, frothy bits at the top. But is he completely wrong? How can we tell? It is going to be hard to find public sources either way. Everything was in panic mode. Were there public conferences? Who attended? Can we find statements about people who helped, really helped, during the pandemic and then be able to determine something about when there are no statements? It is going to be a difficult thing. 05:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it is odd and suspicious for the article to make no mention of ML's book, but I agree that is hard to treat as proven fact. A separate controversy section would be reasonable, merely pointing out the existence of disagreement and allowing interested persons to form their own opinion of ML's reporting. This should not run afoul of living persons biography rule as I understand it. Current (May 2022) article is very one-sided. 24.130.35.240 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Many parts of read like a resume or brag sheet
They’re all cited and sourced, but it feels like there’s not much critical take on her track record. David.xia (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that Michael Lewis is not even mentioned. In his new book on the pandemic, The Premonition, Angell is perhaps the villain-in-chief, who actively tried to suppress any actions the California government might have taken in January and February 2020.C. Cerf (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)