5 ms·
As someone who was arguing for speedy reporting a few weeks ago: the longer the pandemic goes on, the more important rigor becomes. Waiting a short time to get
by ISL 7y ago
As someone who was arguing for speedy reporting a few weeks ago: the longer the pandemic goes on, the more important rigor becomes.
Waiting a short time to get things right today is a a very different matter than a 4-8 weeks ago, where on-the-ground information was completely absent. Speed still really matters, but the longer this goes the more taking our time and doing things right will pay off.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoAre you arguing that in the initial stages incorrect information is less harmful than no information?
- IAmEveryone 7y agoNo, they are not arguing that. I can tell because their post says something else, and because that would be stupid.
- occamrazor 7y agoIn March there wasn’t enough information to decide how strict the social distancing needs to be in order to reduce the spread of the infection. At the same time it was clearly necessary to do something, without knowing in advance how much it would affect the epidemic. Now we can take a little more time to decide what to do next, and take more focused and effective measures.
- bo1024 7y agoThere’s a difference between incorrect and incomplete. Facts, like how many people in a trial of 23 recovered, can be shared and useful early on even though they’re incomplete. That’s different from attempting to draw a strong conclusion about what works from n=23, that might be an incorrect conclusion.
- mattkrause 7y agoThe form that the incomplete data took was part of the problem. Adding numbers to a spreadsheet is one thing. When the same data takes the form of an NJEM or Lancet paper, it definitely implies--and some cases, outright says--more than "FYI: 37/53 people got better when we did [this]." Part of this is how papers are ordinarily written, but I think the authors (and editors) should have stopped all over the word "improvement" in those manuscripts.