Covid-19: Too Much and Too Little Information?

I have been meaning to try to put my current concerns into some kind of focus. We are hit daily with numerous claims about the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on death rates, transmission of infection rates, illness rates, the economy, mental health, changing working practices, education etc, etc. Whilst most of us, with a basic science background, can quickly eliminate vast numbers of 'junk' claims (such as curing the viral infection by ingesting bleach), it becomes very difficult to make sense of what remains. The amount of 'information' is becoming overwhelming. The actual numbers cited come from a vast array of different countries, sources (some medical, some not) and backgrounds (we can't even be sure if the numbers claimed are collected in the same way or even that, in some cases, they might not be 'fudged' or massaged). This is without the problem of different specialists talking, what can seem like, different languages. So comparing the effacies of testing and tracing, social lockdowns, social distancing and the wearing of face masks, becomes extraordinarily difficult (although these are important questions, that need urgent answers). It is still unclear, under what circumstances and how frequently people might be reinfected by the virus; whether the virus already has markedly different strains (like influenza); the precise differences in risk posed by aging or by having particular underlaying medical conditions; how long the side-effects of a viral infection can last in some 'long-haul' patients; when we are actually likely to get a safe and effective vaccine etc, etc. I have posted repeatedly on both the varied reliability of different 'scientific' claims and the particular problem of confirmation bias (where we all have a tendency to treat numbers that broadly support our already established views differently from those that don't). It is very clear that, by selecting the 'right' material (some very pretty graphs can be generated), people can come up with what seem like convincing, but very different, scenarios. Much seems to depend on whether the focus is 'health' or 'the economy'. Having said that, health and the economy are intertwined. We must appreciate that measures, designed to protect people from the virus, carry costs in terms of the finance required, the government's ability to raise taxes, their impact on people's ability to live and work, the mental and physical health of populations, the education of our young people, again etc, etc . I am not suggesting that people are being malign when they make their claims (although some appear driven by political imperatives). I'm simply saying that the stating of absolutes at this stage is distinctly premature. The jury is still out. This is still a relatively new set of circumstances (fortunately) and we have much to learn. Until then, all we have are best guestimates and (hopefully) the precautionary principle (an aim to prevent the worst occurring).