Sometimes the media cites the wrong experts. Like with "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" and "Hillary has a 99% chance of winning the general". In those cases, too, the experts that disagreed with the mainstream view got basically ignored until it was too late.
But, AFAIK, experts don't really have answers to these questions:
- How long does the immunity last?
- How much do asymptomatic people transmit?
- How much do pre-symptomatic people transmit?
- Related to the previous two questions, what percent of cases got infected from symptomatic people?
- What percent of cases got infected from contaminated surfaces, what percent -- from aerosols, what percent -- from droplets?
To a non-expert like me the questions above sound super essential. It's been more than half a year since the virus spread began. How come we still don't know? And so, while calling experts clueless is not polite, does it sound like such a stretch? Maybe it's OK, if experts actually admit they have no clue at the moment?
"... revise their answers as more data comes in?"
This should be a totally normal thing to do, I agree.
WHO has updated its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19 transmission effectively in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...