NYTimes | Maybe the medical authorities in China didn’t report more infections previously because they couldn’t — because, say, they were short of reliable test kits
(which they were). It’s possible that the numbers were fudged. But
maybe they weren’t, or not as much as some people seem to fear. The
change in criteria for what counts as an infection may indicate, not so
much nefarious evidence of a cover-up now exposed, but the struggles of a
local health care system overwhelmed by a sudden and colossal medical
crisis.
Last Thursday, the Hubei authorities also reported a leap in the new daily tally of deaths: 242, compared with 94 for Wednesday.
That’s a big jump, but not nearly as big as the increase in the number
of newly infected people over the same period. Which could be a cause
for some measure of relief: The disease’s lethality would seem to have
decreased or be lower than was previously thought. Yet that’s not the
takeaway likely to have prevailed.
Some of the reporting has amounted to a set of contradictory pronouncements,
confusing at best. Journalists could display more critical distance and
a modicum of skepticism toward the data they relay, instead of turning
the media coverage into a hall of mirrors.
One
major problem is the doing of no one in particular. The story about the
coronavirus’s spread is evolving quickly, with medical authorities in
China and elsewhere disclosing figures daily (or more often), and the
media reporting the information immediately to satisfy the fast-paced,
staccato rhythms of publishing cycles. But up-to-the-minute,
blow-by-blow accounts of hard data can create mistaken impressions about
the underlying facts, even if both the data and the accounts are
accurate.
Last Thursday, a surge in
the number of infections was reported, because of that change in
official criteria. On Monday, China announced a drop in the number of
new cases for the third consecutive day. Now what should we make of that?
Constant on-the-nose reporting, however much it seems to serve transparency, has limitations, too.
It’s
a short-term, and shortsighted, approach that’s difficult to resist,
especially when people are afraid and the authorities are taking
draconian actions. It’s only natural to compare and contrast whatever
hard facts are available. And yet it’s especially dangerous to do that
precisely because people are so anxious, and fear can trick the mind.
A
view from a loftier perch — a month’s, or even just a week’s,
perspective — would, and will, produce far more reliable information.
