There is no such thing as “too soon” when it comes to considering the causes of a problem, unless you’re personally one of the folks who’s responsible for dealing with a crisis directly.
(In that case, maybe you deal with it first then join in the conversation the rest of us will have started while you were working.)
The rest of the time, “too soon” is just a diversion.
It’s used by folks for whom it will always be “too soon”, because what they’re really trying to do is avoid having any discussion at all.
Shooting massacre? For anti-gun-regulation partisans, it’s always “too soon”.
Religious terrorism? For their co-religionists, it’s always “too soon”.
Massive ecological disaster? For oil companies, it’s always “too soon”.
Global pandemic? For privatized health care advocates, it’s now “too soon”.
Screw that; it’s never too soon.
For one thing, understanding the causes of a crisis can help us improve how we’re dealing with it at the time.
That can be really helpful.
Also, understanding the causes of an incident can help us prevent it in the future (or possibly just help us be prepared, so maybe it happens but isn’t a huge crisis). And it can help us address similar problems as well.
Most importantly, though, understanding a crisis needs to start as soon as possible.
The time to start talking about things is when they’re fresh in our minds and motivations are strong.
Other crisis will come along, and normal life will return and the project of understanding and dealing with the problem will just never get underway unless it’s already started.
Which, of course, is exactly what the “too soon” brigade is hoping will happen.
So, no: it’s not “too soon”.
It’s never “too soon”.