[Nightshaxx]

I disagree. In a pandemic it's important to get solid and clear information to the population. If you start saying things that don't go through the proper channels to be verified as reasonably true, then you create massive confusion when you potentially have to go back on that information. Scientists can and do make mistakes. A lay person might not understand what "preprint" or "not peer reviewed" mean yet this article is on the BBC which the average lay person does trust as a source for reasonably true information.

[iso1631]

Last week the media in the uk ran headlines saying that covid was spreading like wildfire, despite the evidence from the number of cases showing the opposite (halving every 2 weeks)

The day later they ran headlines sayign that covid wasn't spreading like wildfire.

The source of the first scaremongering inaccurate dangerous headline was a study which said:

  During the period 6 January to 15 January, SARS-CoV-2 virus was circulating with a higher prevalence than between 25 November to 3 December with 158 in 10,000 infected. There was no strong evidence for either growth or decay in prevalence averaged across the period 6 January to 15 January.

Which led to headlines like

"Covid-19 cases have increased more quickly since lockdown started in England, study finds"

(Lockdown started on Jan 5th - when about 60,000 cases were being identified each day. The headline was Jan 21st, when about 30,000 cases were identified)

https://inews.co.uk/news/covid-19-cases-england-increase-sin...

The 7 day cases identified from Jan 6th to 15th dropped from 55,885/day to 40,242/day

That either means the number of unidentified cases balooned, or the REACT study was too small to identify changes over the course of a week (it's not designed to). In the former case we'd expect fewer tests were being done, but tests throughout January have remained averaging about 550,000 a day.

The media will print whatever they can, so it's important to give headlines which make it clear the data is inconclusive. "appears" is a weasel-word that is well used in this case, and far better than misreporting a scientific paper

[sgt101]

I think that if "the other side" sticks to the rules and doesn't publish things like :https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/20/covid-vaccin... using small sample sizes and various assertions about how the immune system works then you are right!

On the other hand, if you are in a situation where no holds bared screaming to get attention is the norm then it may be good to share information quickly and transparently.