I for one hate this “no evidence” phrase that people are using.
Sure, there are no double blind, placebo controlled randomized studies looking at that.
Also, because of the respiratory nature of the spread of coronavirus, it would be really hard to tease out someone who got it from food or food packaging.
However, Corona virus isn’t the only virus that we no about. We know Hepatitis A can spread in the food. We know Norovirus can spread in the food. Talk about how coronavirus is different that makes you think that spread is unlikely. Also, If you don’t have any idea, say “we don’t know”.
But scientists and doctors use “currently we do t have evidence of” to avoid making a call. Then when lay people see that statement, 9 times out of 10 they take it to mean that “scientists think that you can’t get coronavirus from food.” When the statement is saying no such thing.
But “currently, there is no evidence of” needs to go. Experts need to step up to the plate and give their expert opinion. If there are no direct studies say so and then use your knowledge of various viral protein and related viruses and food conditions, etc to give an actionable recommendation.
I saw this with the question of masks. Experts hid behind “no evidence that masks prevent infection”. Yes the double, blind placebo co trolled studies are lacking, but medical knowledge suggests that reducing the number and spread of infected dropplets is probably a good thing, and given that wearing a mask is a very safe intervention unlikely to cause side-effects, masks should probably have been recommended from the start. The Asian cities where wearing masks is more cultural seemed to have fared a lot better.
In the midst of a pandemic, I think for a lot of questions the null hypothesis should be that corona virus can be transmitted by this, and I should have evidence with 95% confidence that it cannot be.
Thus, a phrase “no evidence of” makes we worried about whatever they are discussing.
Yes, the citation of "currently no evidence of X" as if it meant "good evidence of NOT_X" is just the sort of thing that demonstrates that those who support policies of silencing "misinformation" are no better informed that the rest of us.
I get the impression it's a widespread attitude that you can be "scientific" without being honest about what prior probability you assign to anything. And by "honest", I mean that it exists, so you must disclose; you can't evade.
This may be the essence of what raises my hackles every time someone says trust the experts.
Sure, there are no double blind, placebo controlled randomized studies looking at that.
Also, because of the respiratory nature of the spread of coronavirus, it would be really hard to tease out someone who got it from food or food packaging.
However, Corona virus isn’t the only virus that we no about. We know Hepatitis A can spread in the food. We know Norovirus can spread in the food. Talk about how coronavirus is different that makes you think that spread is unlikely. Also, If you don’t have any idea, say “we don’t know”.
But scientists and doctors use “currently we do t have evidence of” to avoid making a call. Then when lay people see that statement, 9 times out of 10 they take it to mean that “scientists think that you can’t get coronavirus from food.” When the statement is saying no such thing.
But “currently, there is no evidence of” needs to go. Experts need to step up to the plate and give their expert opinion. If there are no direct studies say so and then use your knowledge of various viral protein and related viruses and food conditions, etc to give an actionable recommendation.
I saw this with the question of masks. Experts hid behind “no evidence that masks prevent infection”. Yes the double, blind placebo co trolled studies are lacking, but medical knowledge suggests that reducing the number and spread of infected dropplets is probably a good thing, and given that wearing a mask is a very safe intervention unlikely to cause side-effects, masks should probably have been recommended from the start. The Asian cities where wearing masks is more cultural seemed to have fared a lot better.
In the midst of a pandemic, I think for a lot of questions the null hypothesis should be that corona virus can be transmitted by this, and I should have evidence with 95% confidence that it cannot be.
Thus, a phrase “no evidence of” makes we worried about whatever they are discussing.