I was going to return to the "more information" issue, but I'm told there's no more time for me. FWIW, I don't think I deserved to be yelled at by Strang for asking a respectful and imo reasonable question.

Here's the clip in question. I asked 2 questions. The first is about testing, and went well. The second question, I asked for details about how the disease was contracted at schools. The answer started of reasonably, but then Strang went off the rails:

Obviously, I don't want the personal information of people who have the disease. I'm more interested in — and I think parents are too — learning how the disease is spread, what the risks are for various activities. MORE

I think it's entirely reasonable to ask if I kid caught the disease on the bus, in the classroom, or at soccer practice after school. For two reasons.

First, is so people can assess risk for themselves: should I put the kid on the bus or drive them to school? Maybe not do after-school activities, like that.

Second, tho, is if we know details we can have some assessment of whether public police is working, and is reasonable. An informed public can better check on their public officials. This is not a patriarchy; it's a democracy. However...

Even if Strang feels he can't give details because it would identify sick people (although, I can't see how that's possible), he could simply say as much, without lecturing the questioner, who was trying to be respectful and ask a reasonable question.

Oh, sorry, I thought the link went right to the start of the exchange. It starts at 57:20.

Oh, and my followup was going to be about "still under investigation" cases. I totally get that they can't immediately know about some cases. I mean, travellers is obvious, others need work. Not criticizing them about that.

But surely at some point the "investigation" must either reveal something, or not. But we're never updated about those cases. I think it would be reasonable to...

Assign each case a #, then say what they know about it, how it connects to other cases, what the suspected mode of transmission is (if they know), the age range of the case, like that. Plenty of jurisdictions do this, without breaching privacy. Why not NS?

For example, here's how Ontario tracked cases at Western University

And I know this is subjective, but I'm tiring of Strang's dismissive "Tim." He occasionally calls other reporters by their first names, but he almost always uses my name, and dismissively so, imo.