^ I see the point. At the very least (to incorporate that argument into some of the ideas I've been trying to grasp at in the thread, however ineffectually), what you say can be a reminder that the urge in people to avoid examining things outside their comfort zone (the issue I've been bemoaning in my posts here) is somewhat continuous throughout the grieving process, and excessive caution regarding discussion in the immediate aftermath could be seen as another troubling manifestation of it. So in a sense I have to be careful not to fall into the very trap I say I'm nervous of.
It seems to me it's very difficult to avoid the pitfalls of that urge to shy away from discomfort. If discussion and push for change are too immediate to the aftermath, then there's concern that the raw emotion will cloud rationality or make people too easily swayed by unhelpful answers, because the first impulse will be to pacify and soothe the population, or to seek answers and solidarity, and much of that lends itself to grasping at the familiar and the comforting.
Leave it too late, though, and the emotion that's been provoked, and which might motivate people to invest in getting something done or be channeled into a push for change, will have passed by - and you risk having the sorrow give way to acceptance, which is dangerous because it's only a step removed from apathy. And people's desire for comfort means that if you miss the opportunity to make use of that emotion, that horror and sadness and anger, then it's all too easy to slip back into status quo
and then large scale change is impossible. As I think is being argued, leaving it too long leaves you unable to do anything but be continuously reactive to these events, always on the defence regarding how to deal with the issue, never on the productive offense.
I suppose it would be foolish for me to assume there's a "goldilocks zone" for this sort of thing, but I can't help but ponder that judging the "right time" - if there is one - is very difficult.