What to do about Covid-19 misinformation

Dr. Cory Franklin, Tribune News Service

The most prominent entries in a Google search for “COVID misinformation” are likely to be claims about the dangers and lack of effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine, COVID therapies that have not been proved to work or inaccurate estimations of COVID-19’s mortality. These are typically right-wing talking points, and one could easily develop the impression that COVID-19 misinformation is largely a conservative phenomenon. However, as a research team in the Department of Epidemiology at the University of California at San Francisco has reported, the left also has problems with COVID-19 misinformation. In reality, neither side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on COVID-19 truth.

As the UCSF authors describe recently in City Journal, they did a systematic analysis of all corrections to articles relating to the COVID-19 pandemic issued by The New York Times between 2020 and early 2024. During that interval, they found evidence of bias that served to exaggerate the threat of the COVID-19 virus and overstated the harm of the virus or how effective interventions were. One notable correction in October 2021 found the Times overstated the number of hospitalizations attributable to COVID-19 in children by nearly 15-fold. This type of bias could serve to create anxiety and encourage strict lockdowns or other social measures. It’s important to note that as the pandemic evolved, especially in 2020 and 2021, the scientific understanding of COVID-19 changed. Some of what was considered accurate early on was not borne out when more information became available, so a certain amount of latitude from reporting should be expected. Nevertheless, this should not be an excuse for underplaying risks or panic peddling. Given the potential for misinformation, what can a reader do to obtain accurate information? Here are four suggestions:

Seek out trusted authorities. Trusted authorities are essential but never dispositive. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization are generally considered among our best sources for reliable information, yet neither distinguished itself during the pandemic. For far too long, the CDC assured the public that the COVID-19 vaccine would prevent infection or transmission of the virus. While the vaccine did significantly reduce the contraction and transmission of the virus and did cut down on the severity of infection, it soon became obvious the CDC had overstated its effectiveness. Regarding when to open schools, there were legitimate questions about undue influence exerted on the CDC by the American Federation of Teachers.

At the same time, for two years, the WHO refused to acknowledge the importance of aerosol transmission of the COVID-19 virus and denied the possibility that a lab leak could have started the pandemic, a question that remains unanswered. Its independent status was compromised by its documented relationship with the Chinese Communist Party.

Look for corroboration of claims: Unfortunately, anyone can say anything on social media. Do not accept anything by any source without corroboration by other sources. Scientists are a skeptical group by nature, and if they corroborate the findings of their colleagues, it usually means the findings are reliable. Be forewarned, however, that scientists and journalists are susceptible to groupthink. Where all think alike, no one thinks very much. That’s why corroboration by itself is not sufficient.

Use common sense: Common sense is not so common — but it is underrated; you don’t have to be a scientist to exercise it. The more outrageous a claim, the less likely it is to be true. During the pandemic, this was especially true of politicians, who sometimes made outlandish claims that went unchallenged. Keep in mind that Nobel laureate Richard Feynman once said that in certain situations where science cannot provide definitive answers, “We have to rely on a kind of old-fashioned wisdom … and some hope and some self-confidence in common sense and natural intelligence.”