This is a really good and important @dwallacewells piece on the deeply counterproductive lack of nuance and candor in a lot of the public-health messaging on coronavirus: nymag.com/intelligencer/…
"Scientists have known for months that 'all or nothing' was a misleading way to approach the question of how to combat the spread of the disease — which could be substantially mitigated by warm weather, mask-wearing, and better hygienic practices..."
"....Indeed, one recent analysis of more >1,000 “super-spreader” events around the world found that more than 97% of them took place indoors (most of them also during local flu seasons and in settings that put people into close contact w/ one another for long periods of time)..."
"....Messaging was hobbled by...a strong preference for universal messaging rather than more targeted guidance, which brought us to national shelter-in-place orders before most of the country had even tried social-distancing, mask-wearing, and a focus on the most vulnerable..."
"...Rather than emphasizing that outdoor activity was safe, so long as you kept your distance, we were told that for all but most essential activities we should stay indoors — where we then entertained ourselves by shaming those selfish enough to walk thru park or go to beach..."
This brings me to a question. Why are authorities all demanding that masks be worn "in public," rather than issuing more precise guidance about wearing them indoors and in crowded outdoor spaces? The overbroad demand confuses people and undermines the force of the order.
As @zeynep puts it, as quoted in @dwallacewells piece, "When we conflate the highest risk and the lowest risk activities, we’re telling people it doesn’t matter what they do.” Exactly.
