This is why one has to be careful when thinking about scientific "consensus": When @nytimes surveyed 511 epidemiologists about the future, they got a small number of very bizarre answers from scientists.
~20 scientists said that they expected to never again hug or shake hands with a friend.
~7 said they never expected to go out with someone they didn't know well again.
~5 expected to continue wearing masks forever.
~5 would never again get a haircut at a salon.
~7 said they never expected to go out with someone they didn't know well again.
~5 expected to continue wearing masks forever.
~5 would never again get a haircut at a salon.
There are probably explanations for all of this. Perhaps those people already don't shake hands, go out with someone they don't know well, or cut their hair.
Or perhaps they think things are "bad" and just want to convey that they are "bad." They are worried that any answer other than the worst they can provide will be misinterpreted. So they aren't really answering the question that is being asked.
I think this later thing is very common when scientists are communicating about these things to the public, and I worry about it. It makes it hard for policymakers -- who need real answers -- to take these sorts of thing seriously. And it can reduce credibility of science.
It also makes it hard to convey consensus in science because scientists have already decided what they want the consensus to be used for. They then answer in a way designed to achieve that end, not an honest assessment.
(This is broader problem in survey design, I think.)
(This is broader problem in survey design, I think.)
