In a crisis due to loss or malfunction of the external angle of attack indicator, one has to defeat MCAS while manually trimming the aircraft. Sure, a good, experienced pilot who has trained for such an emergency can carry it off by disabling MCAS. Unfortunately, Boeing's 737-MAX manual and training glossed over the possibility of an emergency due to loss of the angle of attack indicator. US airline pilots complained to Boeing of this and other safety issues only to get brushed off.
Even worse, Boeing made certain safety features into extra cost options. Plausibly, even with poor pilots, the two crashes might have been averted had the optional safety features been on those aircraft instead of being omitted as costly options that would have strained the budgets of Third World carriers.
Ominously but deservedly for Boeing's corporate management, the SEC has taken an interest in the controversy. There is a fair chance that between the NTSB and the SEC, Boeing will be called to account for business decisions that made for bad engineering choices that led to two major air crashes. The FAA also deserves a going over for becoming so accommodating to America's leading civilian aircraft maker.
I would have thought that when they modified the plane and had an angle of attack indicator one one side they would have jumped at the opportunity of having another one on the other side of the cockpit in case a bird strike, runway debris strike or icing up occurred so that the pilot would immediately see something was amiss, and explain in detail how to take over control of the plane.
To me it is like selling cars with either front brakes or rear brakes, you do not need both,but if you want both you have to pay extra. -Tom