There is little debate in the matter.
How do you think the science is done? The first step is to debate these things, to figure out possibilities and design experiments.
I don’t agree with that as a way to run policy that affects real people living their lives.
Because scientific guidance already involves debate within the scientific community, just with people actually qualified to debate it.
It seems some people are taken aback by their exclusion, but no one is stopping you from becoming a virologist and partaking in the debate.
Who were you thinking would be left to debate those guidelines when the guidelines are based on the debate of experts?
Guidelines change because the experts are still free to debate them, where there is little room for debate is following the results of said debate.
-
And what on earth are you asking me how the guidelines from virologists went for when you're the one arguing for leaving room for debate against them?
One would imagine you'd have some very clear pictures of missteps that can't be excused by the fact we were trying to fight an unknown virus killing people at an alarming rate if you're saying there's room for debating if we should follow their guidelines.
I mean go look at the evolution of discussion on COVID fomite transmission yourself.
In March we were getting studies showing long lived presence of COVID in some form on surfaces for weeks, but there was debate on if those were actually infectious amongst experts.
By April here's a virologist pointing out that the results showing weeks didn't mean it was infectious:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/04/0...
And for those who will not read the article but will try to respond based on the url... the conclusion was still supporting possible transmission, just for days instead if weeks. And it was still recommending aggressive disinfection:
> This suggests that risk of infection from virus on objects or surfaces in the environment can be minimized by diligent cleaning and disinfection practices.
-
The very nature of the guidelines is including the fact no all experts are going to agree, which is the point of an organization like WHO.
There is little room for debate in following what their guidelines. It's very easy to come up with armchair opinion showing how misguided that is where they were wrong, but their recommendations are based on accounting for the fact we had a global pandemic to deal with.
Shouldn't store B then be spending less money on "sanitary theatre" and can theoretically provide a marginally better service in ways that matter?
The federal government can spend however many billions of dollars for new TSA staffing and equipment, but that's because they're a monopoly in airline security. Not sure why in a free-market we'd have obviously sub-optimal outcomes like this.
(Sorry if this is naive, feel free to weigh in with harsh realities about how the real world works :) )
I would even bet that most people issuing the cleaning guidance know that it is almost useless, but we live in a world in which it is more important for your actions to make you perceived the way you want rather than being effective.
And how this new information is supposed to reach everyone without being twisted? I heard so much crap being said by doctors, scientists, professors etc. Not just hyperbole, and assumptions, but downright misinformation. I'm in Poland and since the beginning of the pandemic there were multiple lies coming from both government ministers and all the people representing "science" I mentioned. Some examples of lies:
"Masks don't work to protect normal people",(later)"a piece of cloth is all you need", "children don't transmit the virus(then when a new wave of infections was partially caused by children returning to in person learning - ok we fucked up, children were infecting people all along, but we need parents at work not sitting with their children at home) ", "incidence of infection in the workplace is low (then after few months data came out showing 40% of all infections are in the workplace) etc etc.
Now a year later same" leading scientists" are still being invited by the media to answer questions. All available media lie more or less. In this environment how a "typical" person is supposed to know the truth?
I can find published research articles in reputable journals, and actual data to find out what is true, but I have no idea what advice to give to my friends and family who don't have that capability. When they ask me how do you know what is true. All I can say is "read everything and make up your own mind" which is pretty poor.