> current public health risk is low", and (EDIT: NOT the current strain) "50% mortality rate WORLDWIDE" (/NOT)
I’ve not only found online articles that emphasize one focus over the other (low current rate of serious illness in US vs high long-window mortality rate worldwide), I’ve found articles that say both things a few paragraphs apart and don’t give the reader any lifeline for resolving the tension (strains/substrains, access to care, effective interventions, etc).
It’s a reasonable mistake, but when reasonable people see it I hope we’re reaching out to the publishers and asking them to clarify. Better comms improve trust and we’re still suffering from poor if reasonable comms in early 2020.
I’ve not only found online articles that emphasize one focus over the other (low current rate of serious illness in US vs high long-window mortality rate worldwide), I’ve found articles that say both things a few paragraphs apart and don’t give the reader any lifeline for resolving the tension (strains/substrains, access to care, effective interventions, etc).
It’s a reasonable mistake, but when reasonable people see it I hope we’re reaching out to the publishers and asking them to clarify. Better comms improve trust and we’re still suffering from poor if reasonable comms in early 2020.