Yes, but there was plenty of good info that was ignored because it didn't fit what was expected. For example, an outbreak in Korea was traced to one person who attended a church service, where several dozen people caught it. That is clear aerosol transmission, but doctors bent over backwards to explain it as oh they all touched the same surfaces. They expected it to transmit by contact, so they saw what they wanted to see in the evidence. There's reasons for this bias that go back a couple hundred years (miasma), so it's understandable, but a good bit maddening too as these are supposed to be the professionals that are above that.
I think this one is now understood at least at the top of the chain, so I do not expect this error to ever repeat. The bias on pathogenic evolution though is not any better than it was before. If you vaccinate a population against a pathogen, then that pathogen will evolve in response, but also which existing variants take hold and spread will be changed as well (which plays into evolution). As far as I can tell this is still not understood.