Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Governments are generally slow to change guidance when evidence is limited or ambiguous. The problem here is that while we have pretty solid evidence for short-distance aerosol transmission in some cases, it will take time to understand how BIG a factor it is.

One thing that is easy to forget as a layperson: when it comes to public health, the government only has a limited ability to influence public behavior. Think of it as having a limited number of cards to play. So if they spend a card convincing people to wear masks indoors at events, then they can't spend it convincing people not to hold dinner parties (a common source of super-spreading events).

Furthermore if the government emphasizes something that turns out to be ineffective, then they have even less ability to convince the public change their behavior in the future. This backlash gets worse if they appear to "change their mind" on something. Witness the backlash from health authorities shifting guidance on the importance of mask use in response to evidence of high pre-symptomatic/asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

A huge part of the challenge for public health workers is figuring out what measures to emphasize and how to communicate it.

I'm not saying the government responses are ideal: they almost never will be, especially with a new disease. But I can at least understand why they're slow to change their guidance.



This is true. However, they jumped on the deep cleaning guidance pretty quickly despite limited evidence.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: