Via the Columbia Journalism Review: Speculation abounds as Boris Johnson enters the ICU.
ELEVEN DAYS AGO, Boris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister, announced that he had tested positive for COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus. In an upbeat video message posted to social media, Johnson described his symptoms as “mild,” and said he would continue to lead Britain’s response to the crisis from quarantine, “thanks to the wizardry of modern technology.” Last week, Johnson posted several more videos on Twitter; on Thursday, cameras in Downing Street captured him standing in his doorway clapping for his country’s caregivers, part of a coordinated, nationwide round of applause.
As of Friday, Johnson had been in isolation for seven days; he should, at that point, have been allowed out, according to his government’s guidance, but he informed the country that he was still showing one “minor symptom” of COVID-19—a fever—and so would have to stay put. Speculation started to swirl among British journalists that all was not as well as it seemed; The Guardian, for instance, reported hearing last week that Johnson “was more seriously ill than either he or his officials were prepared to admit,” and that doctors were worried about his breathing.
Late Sunday, Johnson was taken to the hospital. His aides insisted he was admitted for “precautionary” tests and was fine to keep running the country—but reports trickled through that Johnson had received oxygen, and stayed in hospital overnight. In Britain, skepticism about the official word on Johnson’s condition reflects more than journalistic impulse. Johnson has a notoriously fraught history with the truth, dating back to his days as a journalist for conservative newspapers; as prime minister, a post he’s held since July, his relationship with the press has been rocky. Ahead of elections late last year, Johnson dodged tough interviews, and officials with his Conservative Party—which ended up winning a thumping victory—pulled a range of dirty tricks. Since then, his advisers have been accused of “Donald Trump-like tactics,” including an attempt to ban disfavored reporters from a government briefing, a move which sparked a brief media boycott. Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s controversial top aide, has been accused of establishing “a network of mafia-style snitches” to catch officials accepting free meals from journalists.
Encouraged, reportedly, by Cummings, Johnson has waged war on the BBC—banning his ministers from appearing on some of its shows, and entertaining reforms that would undermine its public-funding model.
Since the coronavirus crisis took hold, we’ve seen something of a détente. A few weeks ago, Johnson established formal daily briefings at which he, alongside other ministers and medical experts, has fielded journalists’ questions. Still, some tensions have persisted. Some outlets complained that favored competitors got preferential access to public-health information prior to the briefings being instituted; in the weeks since, their usefulness has been called into question. (Last week, even the Telegraph—a conservative newspaper that used to employ Johnson, and is typically fiercely supportive of him—splashed the damning headline “Questions without answers.”) As such, it came as no surprise when, at yesterday’s briefing, Dominic Raab—Britain’s foreign minister, who was standing in for Johnson—faced barbed questions about the true state of the prime minister’s health. Tom Newton Dunn, a reporter with right-wing tabloid The Sun, asked Raab how Johnson could both be “sick enough to be taking a valuable hospital bed, but well enough to be running the country?” Online, commentators, including Piers Morgan, took a similar tone.
Then, last night, the tone softened. Around 8pm, UK time, we learned that Johnson had been transferred into intensive care. Suddenly, the New York Times reported, Britain was keeping “a tense vigil… hoping for the best and experiencing, together, the frightening mysteries” of COVID-19. This morning, Britain’s newspapers, normally known for their pithy, scathing headlines, all led with simple variations on the facts—the facts we know, at any rate.
Johnson’s status still isn’t entirely clear; his government has been quick to confirm major changes in his condition—his move into the ICU, for instance—but hasn’t revealed many details. (Britain’s political situation is a little unclear, too—unlike with the US presidency, there isn’t an established line of prime ministerial succession. For now, Raab, Johnson’s de facto deputy, seems to be in charge.) Overnight, we got some reporting on Johnson’s condition: The Times of London spoke with hospital sources who said he was not on a ventilator, and that he’d needed less oxygen than the normal threshold for ICU transferral. This morning, Michael Gove, a senior minister, confirmed on television that Johnson isn’t on a ventilator. But speculation has been the dominant journalistic mode. Various newspapers and TV networks—including, in the US, CNN—asked medical experts to comment on what Johnson may or may not be going through. Others shared statistics about patient survival rates at various stages of COVID-19 treatment.
Such speculation isn’t very helpful. We lack specific information about Johnson’s case, and extrapolating insight from general statistics is fraught—both because coronavirus data is deeply flawed, generally, and because the context here is so unique. (It’s hard to be sure, at this stage, whether Johnson’s ICU admission reflects normal procedure or an abundance of caution.) It feels invasive, too, to be demanding the finer detail of another human being’s suffering. Still, we should expect a certain level of clear, timely information about our leaders’ health as a matter of public interest, and there’s no doubt that, to this point, the updates about Johnson have painted a confusing, contradictory picture.
