Posts like below (in this case from US) are divisive and unhelpful. Why? Because COVID-19 coverage is increasingly polarised, with multiple groups - all equally convinced that they are right - criticising the global scientific community from both directions... 1/ 
For believing early Chinese data too much and not enough. For producing analysis that is too pessimistic and too optimistic. For thinking about immunity and not thinking about immunity. For highlighting unusual side-effects and not highlighting them.... 2/
For assuming parameters from one country translate to others and assuming they don’t. For focusing on variation in fatality risk and not focusing on variation in fatality risk. For making conclusions based on rough data and not making conclusions based on rough data... 3/
In many ways, these debates reflect challenges faced by researchers. Outbreak data are delayed, biased, patchy and often contradictory. We have to extract information from available data while allowing for possibility that strong new evidence may arrive and change our view. 4/
When you saw that post at the top, you might have thought "I agree with that". But that is the problem – there are lots of other people who will have the same reaction, despite having the completely opposite view to you about how COVID should be tackled. 5/
(For context, this is why the original post was unhappy with scientific community: 6/ )
COVID-19 is forcing difficult tradeoffs. There are no "good" options - each comes with downsides. People are tired & want pandemic to end (we all do), but countries have to find way to work through these tradeoffs - based on current scientific evidence (and its uncertainties) 7/7
