|
|
|
|
|
|
by Someone1234
1870 days ago
|
|
|
That's exactly what they did. They said it is less than 10%, and now we have a bunch of people "correcting" them that it could be actually less than 1%. That correction is unhelpful/pointless/pedantic. If the statement is still true, and the public health guidance is identical, then what is it we're even discussing? This discussion is pointless and the article itself is pointless. The CDC cannot win no matter what they do. They say it is "less than 1%" then someone will find a study that shows that they're wrong, if they say "less than 10%" then people will say that isn't precise enough and that they're wrong. |
|
|
Their job is to pick the most accurate number they can.
And by accurate I don't mean "most mathematically correct", because that would be "less than 100%".
Making an accurate estimate isn't about winning or losing. It will never be perfect. Oh well, still have to try.
You see how "less than 100%" would be a horrible number to pick, right? Wanting more accuracy is not pedantry.