I think one needs to have different standards for an academic discussion versus a public health campaign.
For example, taking drinking and driving. If we're talking academically, it's an incredibly nuanced topic, and I'm sure the actual risk depends a ton on the individual, their skills, their reaction times, their built-up alcohol tolerance, and many other factors.
But if we're talking about actual individuals getting hammered and then grabbing the keys, then "Don't Drink And Drive. Ever." is about the right level for the discussion.
And I think part of the reason that it's so important to hammer home messages like that is that the people who want to do the thing that's dangerous for others will seize upon the nuances of the academic discussion, use anything that gives them permission, and absolutely ignore the rest of it. That's true of drunk drivers for sure. It was also true of smokers before they lost that battle. And of course the Andrew Wakefields of the world are great at building a whole grift around that.
For example, taking drinking and driving. If we're talking academically, it's an incredibly nuanced topic, and I'm sure the actual risk depends a ton on the individual, their skills, their reaction times, their built-up alcohol tolerance, and many other factors.
But if we're talking about actual individuals getting hammered and then grabbing the keys, then "Don't Drink And Drive. Ever." is about the right level for the discussion.
And I think part of the reason that it's so important to hammer home messages like that is that the people who want to do the thing that's dangerous for others will seize upon the nuances of the academic discussion, use anything that gives them permission, and absolutely ignore the rest of it. That's true of drunk drivers for sure. It was also true of smokers before they lost that battle. And of course the Andrew Wakefields of the world are great at building a whole grift around that.