Thanks for letting me know. I thumbed through the article just to make sure and noticed the number was different, but figured if it changed once it would change multiple times and didn’t want to play a pointless game of catch up when my issue was over the use of a term, not the specific number.
I had hoped the WHO would use more scientifically precise language, especially since they’re supposed to be a trusted authority on this subject. I think organizations which muddy the waters on terms like this, intentionally or not, end up damaging to scientific literacy for the average person who might not know the difference. It makes things confusing, especially because -fold is used to mean powers of 2 in some contexts and a reader could end up being misinformed if they came across such a headline on said topic in the future.
By the way now the title says 45-fold.
And from the article
Thanks for letting me know. I thumbed through the article just to make sure and noticed the number was different, but figured if it changed once it would change multiple times and didn’t want to play a pointless game of catch up when my issue was over the use of a term, not the specific number.
I had hoped the WHO would use more scientifically precise language, especially since they’re supposed to be a trusted authority on this subject. I think organizations which muddy the waters on terms like this, intentionally or not, end up damaging to scientific literacy for the average person who might not know the difference. It makes things confusing, especially because -fold is used to mean powers of 2 in some contexts and a reader could end up being misinformed if they came across such a headline on said topic in the future.