Chapter 1: The Challenge of Accurate Reporting

In my role as a journalist, the primary responsibility is to convey precise information. However, the facts surrounding the coronavirus are in a state of constant flux.

The task of reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic has proven to be the most daunting experience in my career as a health journalist. This challenge arises not only from the extensive hours and the prevailing anxiety but also from the relentless demand to produce continuous updates. The most significant worry, however, is ensuring the accuracy of the information shared to avoid contributing to the existing confusion and misinformation surrounding the virus. The urgency for credible information has never been greater, yet the answers we seek are continually shifting.

With a background in science, I place my trust in expert knowledge, empirical data, and the scientific method. My training as an experimental psychologist focused on the brain, rather than on virology, emergency medicine, or epidemiology. Consequently, I rely on specialists who can address questions about the virus's effects on the human body, potential treatments, and transmission methods. Unfortunately, the novelty of this virus means that even the experts frequently lack definitive answers.

Responses such as “I don’t know,” “We’re not sure yet,” and “We’ll have to wait and see” are commonplace in interviews. Experts often make educated conjectures based on their understanding of related viruses and human biology. While they strive to provide the best possible guidance given the available information, their predictions do not always hold true.

The nature of this virus is perplexing. It typically manifests as a cough and fever, but it doesn't consistently present with typical cold symptoms like a runny nose or sore throat. In fact, some patients may experience no symptoms at all, while others might suffer gastrointestinal, ocular, or neurological effects.

Given the considerable uncertainties, the safest approach is to follow what we have learned from previous pandemics and similar viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, it is crucial to heed the advice of reputable organizations like the WHO and CDC, whose experts have dedicated their careers to navigating crises like this. However, what happens when these institutions falter? The CDC has faced significant criticism for its handling of the U.S. response to the pandemic, and public access to their guidance has been inconsistent. Although the WHO has maintained more stability, they have also changed their stance on critical topics, such as the use of ibuprofen, mask-wearing, and the potential for pets to become infected.

These organizations are not intentionally misleading the public; they are simply doing the best they can with limited data. They grapple with the dilemma of whether to adopt an overly cautious stance that may induce panic or to present a more reassuring narrative that could downplay the seriousness of the situation. Different strategies have drawn criticism from various quarters at different times.

The fallout from this scenario has further fueled the skepticism towards science and the media that has long existed within certain communities. Ideally, we would rely on scientists, physicians, and other experts for answers while trusting journalists to relay those answers accurately. However, the reality is that science and medicine often reside in a gray area rather than being clear-cut. Achieving consensus typically requires years of extensive studies and clinical trials, with many scientific debates persisting for decades. Yet, we do not have years to combat this virus; we have mere weeks. Thus, scientists, doctors, and journalists are in a race to find answers and validate claims.

A notable example is hydroxychloroquine. Early reports from unreviewed studies involving small sample sizes suggested that the drug might be effective against COVID-19. This sparked widespread interest from politicians and media alike, leading to coverage that raised public awareness of potential treatments during the pandemic. However, experts soon began to voice concerns regarding the validity of these studies, cautioning that while the initial findings appeared promising, they were based on low-quality data and required further investigation due to the risk of severe side effects.

Unfortunately, by that point, the damage was done. Instances of individuals suffering adverse outcomes from using variations of the drug intended for aquariums have surfaced, and stockpiling has created shortages for those who genuinely require it for autoimmune disorders. Currently, multiple clinical trials are underway, yielding mixed results, with recent findings from China indicating only marginal benefits. In Sweden, doctors have ceased using hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients due to the severe and potentially lethal side effects associated with its use.

In normal circumstances, many science journalists would refrain from reporting on preliminary studies lacking rigorous peer review or proper control groups, like those conducted on hydroxychloroquine. Such findings would typically remain hidden from public scrutiny, allowing the scientific process to unfold without external pressure. However, these are not typical times, and the discourse has become accessible to all, regardless of expertise. Unfortunately, rather than providing reassurance that scientific inquiry is a gradual process characterized by trial and error, many have concluded that science is too slow and those advocating caution are obstructing progress. This has contributed to the perception that journalists are untrustworthy for initially reporting on potential treatments only to later retract those claims.

So, where does that leave me? In every article I write, I strive to be as transparent as possible about what is currently known and what remains uncertain, though I acknowledge that I can always improve. Unlike many journalism outlets, I have the advantage of not focusing on breaking news at Elemental. Instead, I prefer to observe the emergence of new evidence over the following days or weeks before attempting to summarize a consensus on a potential treatment. I utilize the cautious language I learned as a scientist — avoiding absolute statements and always including caveats. This approach may not be the most captivating style, but it is the most truthful. I endeavor to be honest and humble when I make mistakes. This does not entail accepting every opposing viewpoint as truth, but rather maintaining an open mind. Like everyone else, I am doing my best, hoping that tomorrow will bring a clearer understanding than today.

Chapter 2: Understanding the Fluidity of Information

The first video titled Are There Really No Right or Wrong Answers on the CASPer Test? explores the nuances of decision-making in high-stakes testing scenarios, drawing parallels to the uncertainty faced during the pandemic.

The second video, What to do when there are no answers | Ralph Jacobson | TEDxUMN, discusses strategies for coping with ambiguity and the search for clarity amid confusion, resonating with the challenges faced in reporting on COVID-19.