Let's say it has been effective.

Yeah, I think its implicit in the context here that that's what I mean't by "good". The implication in the post I was responding to was that calling it the "China virus" works as a "jab" because China indirectly caused the severity of the pandemic by, through either incompetence or indifference, ineffectively handling the virus. That's just not true.

Saying that it was good implies some moral judgement that this is what we should also strife towards.

That's not really true, for example, I could say "the German infantry in World War 2 was exceptionally good" and very few people are going to read an implicit moral judgement into my comment. It really all comes down to context.

Anyway, we're splitting hairs here.