Signal to noise.
Rather than adding noise, amplify the signal. The number of
documents appearing on preprint servers is more than anyone can physically
read, let alone the additional files being e-mailed and shared around. Perhaps
you could contribute to sifting what is out there. For example, when different
approaches give different results, you could attempt to identify exactly what
is behind the divergence.
When you see something particularly useful that has
been overlooked, please help by distilling the key message and telling others
about it — whether you do so by telling colleagues around you, sharing via
social media or other routes.
Alternatively, you could work with others to
compile summaries and digests of what is out there with respect to some part of
the data, models or results. If you have enough experience in the area, you
could help address the need for more peer reviewers for COVID-19 work of all
kinds. Research is being completed under immense time pressures, and preprints
are being shared rapidly so they can be used by others and contribute quickly
to policy decisions, but it remains as important as ever to maintain the quality
and integrity of academic publishing, even during this unprecedented time.
Communicating to the public
The world wants to know what the science is behind the
decisions, but there is great danger of misinformation when media interest is
amplifying the voices of scientists, but not necessarily those most qualified
to comment.
You can learn the mathematical and scientific ideas from the
broader literature, including some great textbooks. (Real-time papers are aimed
at colleagues who know the literature already; reading only these will not be
enough to get you up to speed.) If you have energy and time, share what you
learn with people around you — and the wider public, if you have that gift.
Communicate the ideas behind the models, the dynamics of epidemics, the
explorations of control measures and the challenges of synthesizing data in
real time. The mathematically literate community can identify and explain the
dangers of overly simplistic readings of the raw data.
For example, early in
the epidemic many websites and media outlets reported the infection fatality
ratio by dividing the current number of deaths by the current number of
confirmed cases, even though it is known from previous epidemics that this
naive approach is flawed. There will be other instances in the coming months
for which the ‘obvious’ approaches are misleading, but their shortcomings might
not be apparent to the general public. And, importantly, those with expertise
in any modelling (in any area) can help communicate the limitations of modelling
— it is not actually magic — and the ideas of uncertainties in predictions.
Cite this article
Gog, J.R. How you can help with COVID-19 modelling. Nat RevPhys (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-0175-7
No comments:
Post a Comment