I agree this is an important discussion, but don't believe in speed limits as it applies to any of this really, depending on what's meant. Many of the problema

I agree this is an important discussion, but don't believe in speed limits as it applies to any of this really, depending on what's meant. Many of the problematic developments regarding SARS-CoV-2 were corrected fairly rapidly. In this regard I see a lot of recent research and its coverage as being typical, but sped up, and with more attention. What I think has been happening is people -- citizens, journalists, scientists -- just seeing what actually happens in science, and not being able to turn away or sweep things under the rug because of the urgency of things. So when claims start being made on shoddy research motivated by questionable motives, and then enshrined in policy with weak justification, everyone notices instead of it just being ignored like it usually is. My sense is that the problem isn't necessarily with preprints or anything -- I suspect outlets like that will only increase in use and significance over time -- it's in the way everything is interpreted. There's a tendency to interpret something peer-reviewed as "The Truth" by many journalists, scientists, and clinicians, whereas in reality science is much more messy, gradual, and variable. It's more of a directed stochastic walk than a straight line. What I'd like to see is everyone treat papers, even peer-reviewed ones, as potentially very fallible minute bits of information, and to recognize the distorted incentive structures that exist in academics today. University press releases should be looked at with as much skepticism as press releases from businesses, for similar reasons.