June 2020 By Elleen Xue
The terror of this year’s novel coronavirus was something the world has never seen in that the last serious worldwide epidemic, unlike localized ones such as SARs and Ebola, played out on social media and television. This, combined with instantaneous communication and air travel, meant the virus was the first truly global pandemic to play out like a horror show. Most people sat glued to their television sets watching ominous death tolls mount as chyrons blared even more ominous portents of doom. But as nations locked down I think the average person was not really evaluating the data in a sane methodical way. This is understandable given the novelty of the situation coupled with the media’s inherent desire to always sensationalize, and what could be more sensational then a possible global cataclysm?
Thus, I would like to address two inquiries: first, to what degree did the media impact the perception of the virus? Before instantaneous technology, the novel coronavirus might have been witnessed very differently is slower time, perhaps as word of mouth spread among doctors more slowly of a very bad flu season, especially among the elderly. The second inquiry would also be how to evaluate data more methodically since many people may have over-reacted while others arguably underreacted. Were death totals really the best way to conceptualize the virus since for many numbers are so abstract and not contextualized? And were the lives saved in the lockdown lives saved in the short run while lives lost in the long run due to economic despair, drug addiction, depression, loneliness and suicides out pace them? The data is still not in. But maybe by doing so we can at least psychologically prepare for the next deadly disease and not react with a paranoia.
Comments (0)