But it won't. The reason things became "partisan" is precisely because things like the article are useless and ineffective. You're assuming a shared reality that doesn't exist.
Partisan issues don't exist because articles like this are useless and ineffective. Partisan stances on this sort of thing is what makes people believe articles like this are useless. You have it backwards.
I would absolutely agree, though, that there is no such thing as a cultural 'shared reality' anymore. That is the base of the problem. There are very, very few shared experiences, and a section of the population is not, seemingly, even interested in trying to understand someone else's viewpoint.
> Partisan issues don't exist because articles like this are useless and ineffective. Partisan stances on this sort of thing is what makes people believe articles like this are useless. You have it backwards.
I don't know. Is it really backwards? I can see how it could be argued that partisan stances spread as a consequence of people having short attention spans and preferring short, context-less flamewars on twitter or other social media instead of reading long-form articles like this one and developing their own thoughts on issues.
Therefore it could be argued that, since people didn't pay (much) attention to articles like this to begin with, "they are useless and ineffective".
It might actually be a self-reinforcing situation, though...
Edit: There may be some confusion: When you say, "things like the article are useless and ineffective", are you saying it's useless in reducing infection, or useless in communicating the message of how to reduce infection?