> Science depends on a slow, thoughtful and meticulous approach to data collection, analysis and presentation, especially if it intends to provide information t

> Science depends on a slow, thoughtful and meticulous approach to data collection, analysis and presentation, especially if it intends to provide information to enact effective public health policies. There's a balance here. Some studies that take almost a decade can be of lower quality than some replicating studies that only took a year or two to conduct. It really depends on the researchers themselves, not the time. Then comes the "grace under pressure" idea of the threat of a pandemic. This of course requires swift research to get to any resemblance of answers to things like life-saving treatments and protocols. Of course early COVID-19 research was sloppy. That's the very human nature of it and looking back upon it is simply unfair to the mass uncertainty humanity shared. > For example, researchers have known for decades that for studies evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention, a control group is needed to know whether any observed effects can be attributed to the intervention. This point requires nuance. People's lives were at stake. That's why so many studies didn't require a control until later on in the pandemic. Interestingly there are adaptive models nowadays where if results are found fast enough, treatments can be offered to the placebo group instead of the outdated method we use today. Regardless, we learned a lot in a short period of time. Hopefully we see significant change in the practice to prepare us for the next major humanity crisis. Things like decentralized clinical trials, adaptive clinical trial arms, outcome-based research, and patient-led involvement can sincerely change how we approach science for many decades to come.