...as far as we know, because it's difficult to prove otherwise and would take months.
Why the impulse to round off uncertainty to certainty? Ed Yong explained it better:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/05/coronavir...
Why the impulse to round off uncertainty to certainty? Ed Yong explained it better:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/05/coronavir...
In Canada, our officials said in January that asymptomatic individuals were not main drivers of epidemics.
And while that may have been true with something like influenza, a more accurate statement would've been we don't have evidence _yet_ that suggests asymptomatic individuals could effectively spread the virus.
We proceeded to operate on that assumption by not forcing incoming travelers from infected regions to isolate, unless they contacted health officials with symptoms associated to the virus. We didn't change this stance until late March, well after the virus had infected thousands of people across the country.
In contrast, Taiwan implemented mandatory 14-day self-isolations for incoming travelers from specific regions as early as late January.
In Ontario, we've had cases of airport taxi drivers pass away from Covid-19. Whereas Taiwan recognized that there'd likely be a large number of people coming home with the virus, so they created special airport quarantine taxis equipped with mandatory masks for passengers and isopropyl alcohol for the driver.
So, yes, I'd agree with your 3rd para, but press can spin such statements to create reputational damage which is really underserved.
More seriously, I get your point but many discoveries are done by finally observing something which existence has been anticipated, hypothesized but still unproven. A planet that had an effect on nearby objects because of its gravity for instance. Or the Higgs boson.
So, yes, thinking of things that are not proven to exist (yet) is often scientifically helpful.
You still want to apply Occam's razor of course.
Is that clearer?