> That is, at best, very weak evidence supporting your conclusion.

Please see the definition of "assume" to help you interpret what I wrote in a way that's closer to what I wrote/was trying to communicate.

Please also see the last sentence, that you missed entirely:

> It would be very interesting to see their rational.

This sentence strongly implies, nearly directly states, that I, in fact, do NOT know their rational.

What's your opinion? Why do you think they're all converging on the same policies? Do you think they're acting irrationally in opposition of data, or without data?