Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34315427›Full record

ReviewBMC infectious diseases2021

COVID-19 false dichotomies and a comprehensive review of the evidence regarding public health, COVID-19 symptomatology, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, mask wearing, and reinfection.

Kevin Escandón, Angela L Rasmussen, Isaac I Bogoch, Eleanor J Murray, Karina Escandón, Saskia V Popescu, Jason Kindrachuk

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
25.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 190 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Positioning the Sense of Coherence (SOC) in Disaster Recovery Planning and Design.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Dealing with dichotomies in health care: Case reports.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Kevin EscandónSchool of Medicine, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia. kevin.escandonvargas@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7173-7486
Angela L RasmussenVaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Isaac I BogochDivision of Infectious Diseases, University of Toronto, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1590-6748
Eleanor J MurrayDepartment of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0043-4901
Karina EscandónDepartment of Anthropology, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2692-2495
Saskia V PopescuGeorgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1521-8139
Jason KindrachukVaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3305-7084
Universidad Nacional de Colombia · COGeorge Mason University · USGeorgetown University · USUniversity of Saskatchewan · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientists across disciplines, policymakers, and journalists have voiced frustration at the unprecedented polarization and misinformation around coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Several false dichotomies have been used to polarize debates while oversimplifying complex issues. In this comprehensive narrative review, we deconstruct six common COVID-19 false dichotomies, address the evidence on these topics, identify insights relevant to effective pandemic responses, and highlight knowledge gaps and uncertainties. The topics of this review are: 1) Health and lives vs. economy and livelihoods, 2) Indefinite lockdown vs. unlimited reopening, 3) Symptomatic vs. asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, 4) Droplet vs. aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, 5) Masks for all vs. no masking, and 6) SARS-CoV-2 reinfection vs. no reinfection. We discuss the importance of multidisciplinary integration (health, social, and physical sciences), multilayered approaches to reducing risk ("Emmentaler cheese model"), harm reduction, smart masking, relaxation of interventions, and context-sensitive policymaking for COVID-19 response plans. We also address the challenges in understanding the broad clinical presentation of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. These key issues of science and public health policy have been presented as false dichotomies during the pandemic. However, they are hardly binary, simple, or uniform, and therefore should not be framed as polar extremes. We urge a nuanced understanding of the science and caution against black-or-white messaging, all-or-nothing guidance, and one-size-fits-all approaches. There is a need for meaningful public health communication and science-informed policies that recognize shades of gray, uncertainties, local context, and social determinants of health.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Communicable Disease ControlHumansPublic HealthReinfectionAerosolAsymptomaticCoronavirusCOVID-19DropletHarm reductionMaskNonpharmaceutical interventionOutdoorPandemicPollutionPresymptomaticReinfectionSARS-CoV-2Transmission

Identifiers

PMID34315427
PMCPMC8314268
OpenAlexW3184154143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.