According to right-wing media I listened to with half-an-ear and thus cannot repeat their methodology, “they” changed the definition of “case” to include something related to contact tracing.
Man, it’s hard to filter out noise in this environment. The Lancet has a paper from April on how China redefined cases to account for asymptomatics and contact tracing, and saw a huge jump in cases. But if the definition of “case” changes and there’s a jump in the number of “cases,” it probably means nobody’s reinterpreting the previous number of cases with the new definition, either to scare people into wearing masks or so as not to confuse the public with changed numbers.
or so as not to confuse the public with changed numbers
If you’re withholding knowledge to avoid confusing people, chances are that your withholding is the primary source of confusion. Just say “new estimates” or “revised estimates” – job done.
According to right-wing media I listened to with half-an-ear and thus cannot repeat their methodology, “they” changed the definition of “case” to include something related to contact tracing.
Man, it’s hard to filter out noise in this environment. The Lancet has a paper from April on how China redefined cases to account for asymptomatics and contact tracing, and saw a huge jump in cases. But if the definition of “case” changes and there’s a jump in the number of “cases,” it probably means nobody’s reinterpreting the previous number of cases with the new definition, either to scare people into wearing masks or so as not to confuse the public with changed numbers.
If you’re withholding knowledge to avoid confusing people, chances are that your withholding is the primary source of confusion. Just say “new estimates” or “revised estimates” – job done.