Covid stories pull both ways
Covid stories have regularly pulled in two directions all year. Current example: a warning about how ordinary cloth masks may not work so well against the new, more contagious Covid variants, so we might be wise to wear better, more technical masks even outdoors; problems everywhere in getting the vaccines; constantly rising death rates around the world. The sudden rush of hope about colchicine as a Covid treatment at the Montreal Heart Institute has been shot down by researchers elsewhere.
And yet at the same time: pandemic provisions may be lightened in Quebec’s regions and retailers are keen to reopen.
But it’s been like this all year, the voice of caution, as reported in the media – but the same media giving a platform to people who want to throw off the restrictions as soon as possible. Sometimes it’s in the name of making money and keeping businesses moving, other times it’s more solemn, in the cause of keeping young people, old people, any people, from going mental.
qatzelok 11:28 on 2021-01-28 Permalink
In capitalist countries like our own, aren’t *both sides* of any story often about money?
DeWolf 12:43 on 2021-01-28 Permalink
It makes sense to loosen restrictions in many regions. There are only four active cases in the Gaspésie, none in the Côte Nord and no new cases reported. It’s hard to justify keeping people under indefinite lockdown and curfew when the threat isn’t present.
But if that’s the case, I really hope the province imposes restrictions on travelling between regions, similar to what we saw last spring. I wouldn’t put it past some people from the Montreal area to think now is the perfect time to go skiing in the Chic-Chocs…
Kate 12:54 on 2021-01-28 Permalink
DeWolf, exactly. People will do that, if they have a chalet or friends/family to visit in those regions, and bring the virus with them.
DeWolf 14:15 on 2021-01-28 Permalink
To your point about media coverage – I think there needs to be a reckoning about the role news media has played in the pandemic, particularly their influence in shaping public attitudes and public policy. As you’ve pointed out, when you step back and look at the overall scope of news about Covid, it’s completely incoherent. There’s a grab bag of stories that don’t make any sense together.
Part of the problem is sensationalism, which distorts reality in order to gain clicks and eyeballs. This has been a perennial problem in health journalism, where a single study with a limited scope is reported as the incontrovertible truth, with no focus on the limitations of that study. Another problem is the scientific illiteracy of most journalists. Then there’s the “both sides” fallacy that is still pervasive among reporters. And finally, there’s a bias towards bad news – “if it bleeds it leads.”
You can see all of this at play in vaccine coverage. We get sensational stories about the deaths in Norway or the vaccine data from Israel, both of which misrepresent the actual situation (the deaths may not be linked to the vaccine; 33% effectiveness was good news but portrayed as a failure). We get speculative, exceedingly dour analysis of the impact of vaccines, with stories reminding everyone that vaccines may not stop transmission. We get stories that make it seem like public health measures and the economy are diametrically opposed (“both sides!”). And we get politics coverage that lets politicians get away with falsehoods (like Erin O’Toole’s “last in line for the vaccine!”) because whatever they say is reported at face value.
These are all deep-rooted problems with journalism that have been around for awhile, but in a pandemic their impact is all too tangible. Inaccurate and sensational vaccine coverage increases vaccine hesitancy, for instance, which costs lives. Stories that pit health against the economy as if they are opposing sides of an argument can lead governments to make very bad policy decisions.
I’m not sure what the solution is, but it needs to start with a discussion. Unfortunately, many journalists are in stubborn denial that there is a problem or that anything can be done about it.
Alison Cummins 16:55 on 2021-01-28 Permalink
DeWolf,
I think dedicated science journalists with a science and research background are a large part of the solution. The question as always is, who is going to pay them?
Another part is teaching statistics and probability from primary school onwards. Probability is nonintuitive and understanding needs to be built up. Even establishing a common language: I make a clear difference between “most” and “almost all” but I can’t always count on the person I’m talking with making the same distinction.
I’d like to see “enlightened self-interest” make a comeback as a concept, but as long as churches are a primary driver of public discourse in the US with the accompanying unhelpful vocabulary of good and evil, I don’t see that happening. Once the US Supreme Court is stacked with secularist judges who decide that government staying out of religion means not recognizing religion at all and treating churches like businesses, we might be able to get somewhere.
If enlightened self-interest becomes a normal principle, we can make some headway with the idea of public health as a common good.
Right now governments often try to treat health as a private issue, especially in the US but also here. If health is all about personal decisions, what does public health even mean?
+++ +++ +++
Wasn’t the common good a useful idea 50–100 years ago, when unions were strong? And often associated with godless communists? I wonder if meaningful discourse around public health is only possible with strong manufacturing and unions, or monarchs who take a personal interest in the well-being of their subjects.
Tee Owe 17:32 on 2021-01-28 Permalink
DeWolf and Alison – you make good points – I want to comment on one theme, which is the role of science journalism, which includes science publishing – unfortunately science publishing companies profit motive is as base as any mass media – the tendency towards clickbait and ‘impact’ is no different for scientific journals as for newspapers, I wish it were otherwise, but not. This puts many well-motivated scientists and scientific commentators into a dilemma, they want and need to publish their findings and opinions but have to do so via commercial outlets that are not always so purely motivated. Just making a point that needs to be considered along with all the other very good points that you are making.
Kevin 19:08 on 2021-01-28 Permalink
I’ve been arguing for decades that people who are unable to balance a chequebook are not qualified to write health or medical articles.
I also argued for almost as long that most people are not qualified to make decisions about their own health care because they just don’t have enough basic information about how their body works.
JaneyB 15:20 on 2021-01-29 Permalink
The news coverage of covid has been a big part of the anti-masking groups and general confusion that many seem to feel. Simple informational coverage has been bad – the CBC frequently forgets that Toronto is not the whole country so many of their national stories get the local facts and measures completely wrong. I’ve written a complaint to them about this. Most importantly though is just the fact that most of the media these days is basically reflections on the lockdown experience or interviews / call-in shows asking people how they feel under covid. Why ask? We know it’s shitty and will be for some months yet. Asking people makes them agitated. Why can’t journalists cover something else instead? As far as I can see, media outlets everywhere have been profoundly lazy, half-assed or plain wrong since March. This makes me wonder newly about their competence in normal times.
Kate 19:10 on 2021-01-29 Permalink
DeWolf, that comment of yours should be expanded into a serious op-ed. Good work.