Summary: The information superhighway provides us with data on a scale unavailable to anyone before the modern era. Unfortunately, it appears to be making us dumber. Seeing our responses to COVID-19 shows how. We can’t afford this.
Lost in the weeds
One of the great oddities with many major events is that the reporters outnumber the participants. There is not only a massive overcapacity of news media vs. their audiences – the competition making them often desperate for clicks – but there are too much news media and vs. the available news even during the crisis, making them desperate for something to say.
So the major media floods us with trivia about COVID-19. Every case is reported. Countless people give analysis and make predictions. Some are experts in the field. Some are experts in somewhat related fields. Some are absurdly confident amateurs. All get reported like certainties. This produces a cacophony, confusing more people than it illuminates.
Update – Others have seen this. See “Dangerous Curves” by Julie Kelly at American Greatness – “If this is the new normal, where incomplete data and media-fueled panic rule the day, that is an even more frightening prospect than what’s happening right now.”
Worse, they give authoritative messages telling us what we want to hear – no matter how bogus. For example, see this Wall Street Journal article saying that China’s response was “slow.” In fact, it was fast. Far faster than that of the US, although in January they had far less information about the threat than the US had in February. This ignorance about context is a common feature of stories, even in the major media. Compare China’s response to COVID-19 with America’s much slower response in 2009 to H1N1 influenza (aka swine flu). That is progress, but you will not learn this from the press.
Worse, too many people pick the views that match their political biases, making effective leadership more difficult – and fracturing our social cohesion (people cannot act together if they see different realities).
Building big conclusions in the air
Perhaps the most common result of the flood of data about COVID-19 is the construction of castles in the air. Much of the data is of low quality and rapidly changing (a core reality in both wars and epidemics). In today’s America, competition is fierce in almost every field. The temptation to experts is great to use this kaleidoscope of data to produce exciting stories and get their 15 minutes of fame.
We see this with the exciting news stories of models’ forecasts about COVID-19. The models are valid but their assumptions are guesses. Modeling the spread of COVID-19 in an unprepared population is relatively easy, assuming one can accurately predict the deterioration in fatality rates as infection rates rise. But how to model the spread in a population taking large-scale but varying protection measures – from more washing of hands to social distancing to sheltering-in-place? The modeling quickly becomes garbage-in, garbage-out. Worse, journalists often ignore the experts’ caveats and report them like prophecies.
Update, an example – A paper dated March 16 by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team said that “in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality.” The internet went wild! Now the lead author Tweets that the model’s code is not open, reproducible, or even documented. He wrote it 13 years ago, and has no idea if it is any good – or if it even if works as reliable code. But it got him fame and funding. So it was a success!
Amateur experts are a bigger problem. They take the numbers and produce big bold conclusions, mostly gibberish since they do not understand what the numbers mean. They usually report their conclusions with mad confidence.
Their most common error is assuming that key epidemiological factors are constants – and crunching the numbers to declare that the experts’ numbers are wrong. But these numbers represent conditions only of a specific time and place. R0 is affected by the population’s density, age distribution, health, and social behaviors (see the CDC page explaining how it is “easily misrepresented, misinterpreted, and misapplied.”). The case fatality rate is affected by the population’s age and health plus the effectiveness of its health care system – and by the definition and methods of identifying a “case” (e.g., clinical criteria, testing of the ill, mass serological screening – all give different counts of cases and so different fatality rates).
Both R0 and fatality rates are affected by measures to defend against the virus. Calculation of these numbers is not like counting apples.
Actual experts stress that we know little and most of the numbers carelessly thrown about are very rough estimates. For example, see “A fiasco in the making?” by John P. A. Ioannidis (professor of epidemiology, Stanford) at STAT – “As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.” Of course, by the time decision-makers get the firm numbers he wants, this probably will be over, one way or another.
Now for the bad news
“Bad money drives out good.”
— Gresham’s Law (1860).
All of these dynamics generate “content” that is reported, misreported, and exaggerated across the internet.
Now for the bad news. This mess of misinformation often displaces authoritative information in the public spaces, just as bad money displaces good money in the marketplace. People travel the information superhighway to become better informed. They often become less well-informed than when they began.
Update – The clearest example of this is a common response by Americans to news that China has responded better to COVID-19 than the US: THEIR NUMBERS ARE LIES. This is daft for several reasons. First, foreign survey teams have verified that the epidemic in China peaked roughly February 1; they are having difficulty even finding new cases for their drug trials. Second, the US response is clearly less effective than China’s despite having 2 months to prepare (vs. none for China). This is a blind refusal to learn, which has become a characteristic response by America to challenges (e.g., our refusal to learn from the far superior public-private health care systems used by our peers).
The saddest aspect of all this is that the essentials of the COVID-19 epic are reported daily in a clear and concise form by the CDC and WHO. People could learn more in less time than they spend surfing the net and getting misinformation (and technical information beyond most people’s ability to understand).
It’s easy to follow the COVID-19 story
The World Health Organization provides daily information, from highly technical information to news for the general public. These are the best sources of information.
- There is their daily situation report, with detailed numbers.
- The Director-General of WHO gives frequent briefings, which are quite insightful.
- Their daily press briefings have more information. An audio goes up quickly afterwards. A transcript is posted the next day.
Also, see the wealth of information at the CDC website, especially their situation reports.
Posts about effects of COVID-19
- Hidden news about the epidemic sweeping across America! – Fake news drives out good news.
- Lessons from the coronavirus about climate change.
- A devastating epidemic spreads across America – An epidemic of panic and ignorance.
- Soon we’ll see if the US can defend itself again COVID-19.
- COVID-19 will hit the world economy hard. Here’s how.
- Seeing what went wrong can help us beat COVID-19.
- COVID-19 shows the new center of the world.
- Prepare now in case they close the stock market.
- The key to surviving the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Useful information amidst the flood of chaff & guesses about COVID-19.
For More Information
Ideas! For some shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see a powerful and disturbing story about “Birth of a Man of Steel …for the Soviet Union.”
Please like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. Also, see these posts about information…
- Important: Marx was right. Social class explains American politics.
- Important advice: Learning skepticism, an essential skill for citizenship in 21st century America. About “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.
- The missing but essential key to building a better America – Clear sight about our condition.
- Swear allegiance to the truth as a step to reforming America.
- We live in an age of ignorance, but can decide to fix this – today.
- American politics is a fun parade of lies, for which we pay dearly.
- Ways to deal with those guilty of causing the fake news epidemic.
- The secret source of fake news. Its discovery will change America.
A medieval city defeats a plague
Florence Under Siege:
Surviving Plague in an Early Modern City
.
By John Henderson (2019), professor of Italian renaissance history at U of London.
I strongly recommend reading this fascinating review of it in the London Review of Books, with its great excerpts. From the publisher …
“Plague remains the paradigm against which reactions to many epidemics are often judged. Here, John Henderson examines how a major city fought, suffered, and survived the impact of plague. Going beyond traditional oppositions between rich and poor, this book provides a nuanced and more compassionate interpretation of government policies in practice, by recreating the very human reactions and survival strategies of families and individuals.
“From the evocation of the overcrowded conditions in isolation hospitals to the splendor of religious processions, Henderson analyzes Florentine reactions within a wider European context to assess the effect of state policies on the city, street, and family. Writing in a vivid and approachable way, this book unearths the forgotten stories of doctors and administrators struggling to cope with the sick and dying, and of those who were left bereft and confused by the sudden loss of relatives.”
An example of the press making us stupid
.
“How It All Started: China’s Early Coronavirus Missteps”
“China’s errors, dating back to the very first patients, were compounded by political leaders who dragged their feet to inform the public of the risks and to take decisive control measures.”
Wall Street Journal, 6 March 2020.
This is riddled with misinformation. I’ll look at one example in depth.
That’s a description of these two dates:
That’s 11 days from detection to a drastic step! The WSJ does not mention the escalation of steps during those 11 days. Also, they did not “quarantine” Wuhan. It was a cordon sanitaire, a very different and far more drastic step. This basic error shows the ignorance and lack of expert advice by the WSJ’s journalists.
Compare China’s initial response with the response in Washington State – the first US state hard-hit.
On 21 January 2020, Washington State reported its first case. It spread invisibly since the gov’t response was almost nil – there was little testing, either clinical screening or by kits. The first state lab began tests approx Feb 28 – 38 days after the first infection.
Small scale measures – such as a quarantine of the infected in Seattle on March 3, and special procedures for nursing homes on March 9. Wider measures were taken on March 11 and 12.
By March 14, they had 642 confirmed cases – the same as when China blockaded Wuhan. Still, no large-scale measures were taken.
All this was much slower than in China – despite the vastly greater knowledge about the threat Washington’s leaders had in Feb and March than China’s leaders had in early January.
If China’s response was “slow”, what was that of America’s leaders?
It was slower and dumber. No one can deny that and there are plenty of criticisms of our response in our press.
Here are a few:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/world/europe/coronavirus-testing-world-countries-cities-states.html
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/united-states-badly-bungled-coronavirus-testing-things-may-soon-improve
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/president-trump-needs-to-step-up-on-the-coronavirus/
In any case, I am glad I was able to contribute to your new post Larry, despite you thinking I am just another member of the ignorant rabble that is now America.
Larry, thanks for the opportunity to interact, yet again.
You’ve posted a couple articles, with references to other readings, that seem to contradict your first assertion. If I may,
“China’s errors, dating back to the very first patients, were compounded by political leaders who dragged their feet to inform the public of the risks and to take decisive control measures.”
Wall Street Journal, 6 March 2020.
There are several articles that the coronavirus was actually identified on December 17th, by China’s scientific community. December 17 until Jan 9th is 23 days, plus 11 days is 34 days from detection to first steps.
Couple this information with patient zero analysis, traced back to November 13th in Hubei province where patient zero was likely one of a cluster of 34 cases, the actual time frame from detection to first steps is now ~65 – 70 days by the Chinese government.
Just wanted to point this out, considering today’s article’s topic matter.
Jim
Jim,
I’m skeptical about those early reports of the identification of the virus. If so, that would be far beyond extraordinary. Epochal in a population of 1.4 billion to have identified something so similar to influenza in so few cases. Nobel prize material.
What I see are increasingly desperate attempts to blame China to distract America from the massive failures of our institutions. It’s working, more evidence of our dysfunctionality. Pretty pitiful. Especially since China’s response was so superior to ours, something that grows more obvious (except to those with thick ideological blinders) every day.
This is not surprising for a people with a long history of believing serial liars. That includes our government officials, but also legions of doomsters and sensationalists.
Anyway, I’ve spent thousands of words debunking these stories in Dave’s comments. That was a waste of time, and I’m not going to do so again. In the unlikely case you are interested in seeing both sides of this, look at that thread.
Jim,
I forgot to give you the link for Dave’s comments. They’re in the comments to this post.
Jim,
Follow-up to your comment —
“There are several articles that the coronavirus was actually identified on December 17th”
Even the technically inaccurate and wildly biased WSJ article (Murdoch has really trashed the WSJ) that you cite does not claim such a thing. What is your source?
When this epidemic is over, it would be an interesting exercise to compare the various predictions, prognostications, obfuscations and outright lies to the actual outcome. In the cases where these statements caused actual harm, there could be a lot of interesting work for lawyers. At the very least, naming and shaming of the worst offenders would be a worthwhile course of action.
Raymond,
I agree. But Americans love doomsters, and are indifferent to their near-perfect records of error. See Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich, so loved on the Left. And the hordes of economic doomsters on the Right, for whom hyperinflation and dollar devaluation are always emerging from under the bed.
This love of misinformation is one of the things that makes us easy to rule, a gift to our elites. See this post for more about this important subject.
How are we going to restart the economy?
Sven,
That’s one of the many good questions with no good answers. There are no close precedents for this situation.
Between the fiscal stimulus programs, need to restock goods & services, and deferred spending – reopening the streets might spark the economy into action. People in goods production will work to fill orders, transportation will move the goods, warehouses will restock, and people & institutions will flock to restock.
Services will be equally busy. Barbers are closed in Iowa. Lots of men and women will need haircuts. Lots of discretionary services have been deferred – from cosmetic surgery to roof repairs.
My guess is that will work if supported by govt pump-priming. But we can only guess.
The bigger question is when to reopen for business. As with everything COVID-19, we look to China (first in, first out). They are reopening now. We’ll see how they do it, and with what results.
“Dangerous Curves” by Julie Kelly at American Greatness – “If this is the new normal, where incomplete data and media-fueled panic rule the day, that is an even more frightening prospect than what’s happening right now.”
Stev,
That’s a great article. I’ve added more info about it to your comment, and I’ll add it to the post. Thanks for citing it!
your welcome, I keep txting it to all my friends hoping they will stop and think a bit…
With the restaurants only offering takeout and delivery, Uber Eats should boom!
I read Macron’s speech and agree he did very well.
Longtrail,
“Companies ramp up hiring to meet heightened consumer demand amid coronavirus pandemic.”
They list companies that are hiring. Such as “Amazon is hiring 100,000 warehouse workers nationally, including 5,900 in Texas.”
“One of the great oddities with many major events is that the reporters outnumber the participants. There is not only a massive overcapacity of news media vs. their audiences – the competition making them often desperate for clicks – but there are too much news media and vs. the available news even during the crisis, making them desperate for something to say.”
So what is your solution to this?
Facebook, Reddit and other places have been heavily censoring quack posts and reports, especially those relating to fake cures.
People are trying to get a handle on the spread of misinformation but it is a feature of the internet that you will have an innumerable amount of commentators and reporters for any given event.
I don’t know what a free society does in times like these when information is so easily spread and accessible.
I hope you don’t think we should we adopt centralized censorship and government monitoring of our communications like China does with platforms such as WeChat?
https://cpj.org/blog/2020/03/citizen-lab-chinese-censorship-coronavirus.php
The only thing we can do for now is try to regain our lost sense of identity starting in our local communities. Build trust at the local level, with local experts and go from there. People can then know what to listen to and what to ignore.
This requires as you have wisely stated us engaging where ever we can and not merely expecting things to change via the election of a messiah congress or president.
A sensationalist media feeds on a people who have no real connection to one another and don’t know who to trust.
Dave,
“So what is your solution to this?”
Most problems don’t need “solutions.” The overcapacity in this industry will probably take care of itself by the usual microeconomic processes. Just like having too many gas stations. The excess ones will close.
Our love of misinformation is who we are. It is good – for our ruling elites, as it makes us easy to govern. It works fine for Americans content to be subjects. As Neo says in The Matrix Reloaded: “It’s all about choice.” America will be what we want it to be, if we are willing to pay the price to make it so. I discussed this in my 2006 post “Death of the Constitution”, since re-written (improved) many times since. Here is the 2017 version.
“I don’t know what a free society does in times like these when information is so easily spread and accessible.”
I don’t believe you understand what I am saying. This is a free market society. If we want misinformation, that’s what vendors provide. If we want good information, that’s what we get. In crisis after crisis, doomsters flood the public with information. Often the same doomsters. There is no penalty for misinformation, where as providing sounds information (with due regard for uncertainty) is the path to bankruptcy. It is all about choice. The Founders were quite clear about this. Much of the Federalist Papers describes how they relied upon a mature citizenry who cared about truth because they felt responsible for the Republic.
Without that sense of responsibility, then “news” becomes “infotainment.” And here we are.
“A sensationalist media feeds on a people who have no real connection to one another and don’t know who to trust.”
It doesn’t “feed on” anything. It gives us what we want. We blame the media for what we like to read like a compulsive eater says that doughnuts leap into his mouth.
When we assume responsibility for ourselves, many of our problems will disappear like shadows when the light goes on.
“When we assume responsibility for ourselves, many of our problems will disappear like shadows when the light goes on.”
That isn’t something that just happens like flipping a switch.
It takes time and effort, many times without any clear idea that such efforts will even pay off.
“People could learn more in less time than they spend surfing the net and getting misinformation (and technical information beyond most people’s ability to understand).”
People don’t just go to the easy to read official sources because they don’t trust our institutions, they think they have been politicized and will either downplay or ignore things that don’t fit within the political agenda.
That is why I am saying we need to build trust from the ground up.
If you see that your city officials are trust worthy because you put them there, you know them personally, and you are involved in discussions and planning as a concerned citizen, then when they tell you something you are going to listen.
Keep pushing that up to the state level and the US representative level, which have offices in their districts, then eventually people will listen to the CDC and others and stop thinking everything is a damn conspiracy.
Dave,
“That isn’t something that just happens like flipping a switch. It takes time and effort, many times without any clear idea that such efforts will even pay off.”
Duh.
“People don’t just go to the easy to read official sources because they don’t trust our institutions,”
Absurdly false. There are ample authoritative sources out there other than “official sources.” But the more sensational ones get the traffic (eg, Zerohedge), which pushes the press towards greater sensationalism. Talk to a reporter.