CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

The summary page from Fly's post probably covers the issues.

The risk assessment linked in the summary (attached) - is to be read in conjunction.  The information isn't static and will change as more information is known.

There is high confidence in two measures and low confidence in another two.

Thanks [member=181]dodge[/member]‍ , a measured response.

It's interesting to see how the public react to the science when it is communicated fairly conservatively.

We know scientific claims won't be made when they can't be strongly supported, so formal commentary based on early trends will always be conservative, the scientists want more data. Scientists won't make the early crow mistake that the HCQ boosters did. To some degree that leaves scientific and technical reports open to misuse and abuse as we know, however nobody having a rational look at this stuff will disagree with the conservative perspective taken by the scientists.

If the scientists go early they don't have enough data to be confident to the levels they would like, so the naysayers and critics take a cheap shot claiming there isn't enough data to support the conclusions or predictions. If the scientists don't go early they can see people might suffer, the critics will claim they should have been warned.

It's a no win for the scientists, but they persist because they know it is the right thing to do!