In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, educators and policymakers have scrambled to assess the impact on student learning. Popular metrics that have gained traction are the notions of "years of learning lost" or "months behind," which attempt to quantify the educational setbacks caused by the pandemic. The allure of these time-based metrics is understandable; they provide a seemingly straightforward way to communicate the magnitude of learning loss to non-technical audiences. But beneath their simplicity lies a complex web of assumptions, statistical manipulations, and, ultimately, misleading conclusions that may do more harm than good. This paper delves into the flaws of time-based metrics and argues for a more meaningful approach to measuring student progress. It challenges the assumption that more time automatically equates to more learning and advocates for assessments that provide richer, content-based insights into student abilities and needs. By critically examining the current narrative, the paper seeks to inspire educators and policymakers to reconsider how we measure and respond to educational challenges in a post-pandemic world. [Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education (Philadelphia, PA, 2024).]