I think one challenge is that pre-print servers are meant for scientists, not the public. Take physics. If I read a paper on the arxiv in my niche, I can eval

I think one challenge is that pre-print servers are meant for scientists, not the public. Take physics. If I read a paper on the arxiv in my niche, I can evaluate it's quality. I often referee papers. For me, it's useful to get the early result and if there are gaps, then it's on me to catch them. For those working on Covid19, they are experts, writing for experts. Someone may put out a paper about aerosols in enclosed spaces and how they linger. Someone else might write about how this doesn't verify if the virus RNA detected indicates a live virus. This is how science works and you are seeing it at an accelerated pace. It's actually rather beautiful. But, if you are say a journalist and don't understand this, you can see an article and write a story about it, without understanding that it is preliminary. In short (too late for that), the problem is not that articles on pre-print servers disagree ad we learn more (that's also science)--it is failure of reporting to inform people that these are preliminary results and could be wrong.