Mike Coston has a good post this morning on
Sisyphus And The Media—Sisyphus in this case being WHO's Gregory Härtl, who early today sent out tweets to a lot of people about the potential lethality of novel coronavirus. (If you
follow me on Twitter, you've seen my retweet.)
I'm always glad to be corrected; after all, I got into flu blogging because I was totally ignorant about H5N1 and other infectious diseases, and my education continues. What credibility I have depends on my choice of sources and the interpretation I put on them.
I keenly sympathize with the experts' frustration over the media's interpretations. Yes, NCoV is not "SARS-like" just because they're both coronaviruses. Yes, NCoV "could be," not "is," more lethal than SARS.
And yes, the media often get it flat wrong: Just minutes ago, Google News alerted me to a story about a boy in Shenzhen who was "critical" with H5N1. But the H5N1 was a figment of the headline writer's imagination: the story itself made it clear he's dealing with H1N1.
Public health, like justice, must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. Certainly the media owe us accurate reports on health issues, but the experts in turn owe the media much more information and analysis than they're usually willing to provide.
In some cases, like China with SARS and Cuba with cholera, the experts are thoroughly muffled by their political masters. In effect, the politicians fear embarrassment more than they fear disease.
In other cases, like Cambodia's recent outbreak of H5N1, the information came, so to speak, a day late and a dollar short. We have had no update of the Cambodian Ministry of Health's website since February 26, so we have no sense of what the Cambodians and WHO have actually been doing in the past month.
I realize that agencies like WHO have political masters also, and have to be circumspect about what they say. (Don't get me going on cholera in Haiti.)
But the agencies and media have this in common: They both want a good story, and even the media are happier with an accurate good story than with a bogus one. The onus is therefore on the health agencies and experts to educate the media, repeatedly if need be.
Admonitory tweets are welcome, but more information in the first place would be better. WHO could set an example in this regard. Its outbreak reports are maddeningly concise, and much heavier on fact than on analysis. They rarely include much follow-up about, for example, H5N1 survivors or measures taken after EV71 outbreaks to forestall another one.
So if the experts want the media to understand disease, they need to understand the media. If accurate factual information and reasonable interpretation (beyond the usual "experts fear" paragraph) is included in news releases and articles, the media will jump on it with gratitude. So will Flublogia.
Recent Comments