Some of you are falling into the clever trap of
Decision A was correct because noone died.
This is assuming that the only correct decision is the one where noone dies. This also assumes that any decision where people do suffer fatal injuries are incorrect. However you can not keep this logically consistent.
How about the recent crash of Emirates. Many people leaving with carry on luggage. Noone of the passengers died. Logical conclusion following above reasoning: Decision to bring carry on luggage was correct because noone died.
To apply some kind of logical consistency to the debate, one needs to consider the available scenarios. This includes factoring in survival possibilities and possibilities of injuries "if"/"not if".
If people stay in the cabin of a plane on fire, history tells us that the risks for injuries and/or fatalaties are very great.
If people are evacuated from the cabin of a plane on fire, history tells us that the risk for injuries and/or fatalaties greatly diminishes.
"Not if"s are: no fire chief in his/her sane mind would ever claim to know exactly how long a fire would take to extinguish: noone can accurately predict the probability, location, placement or duration of explosions when aircraft are on fire: the probability of survival for people staying in the cabin diminishes very quickly the larger the flames and the larger the affected area of the plane is engulfed in flames.
To reason that a decision is correct because noone died is logically inferior in this case.
Also, I hear many of you often say "better safe than sorry" and "if in doubt, there are no doubts". In this particular case I would say that both these statements logically contradicts the events on this particular flight.
It is very lucky that everyone got out alive. I am satisfied with that.