It's easy to point at others for imperfect data and imperfect science when the situation is evolving so fast and data is so hard to come by. It seems to me that papers being retracted due to inaccurate evidence is not a sign of sensationalism but of sound science. Once can argue that more diligence should be practiced in the review process, but I assume everyone is trying their best to get the information out there ASAP.
In any case, policies need to be enacted now (or rather two weeks ago) in any but the best case scenarios. There is no time to wait for more accurate information. If one argues that exaggeration is rampant and we should learn more before making hasty decisions, then that's essentially arguing for inaction. Even if that was the right action I suspect the induced panic in the society will be even greater.
The author also seems to be implicitly weighing the dire consequences of a pandemic (maybe millions more people dying) against the supposed reputation damage to science, which is bizarre to say the least.
In any case, policies need to be enacted now (or rather two weeks ago) in any but the best case scenarios. There is no time to wait for more accurate information. If one argues that exaggeration is rampant and we should learn more before making hasty decisions, then that's essentially arguing for inaction. Even if that was the right action I suspect the induced panic in the society will be even greater.
The author also seems to be implicitly weighing the dire consequences of a pandemic (maybe millions more people dying) against the supposed reputation damage to science, which is bizarre to say the least.