The headline on Stuff (originally from The Age) reads
Coronavirus: A man got Covid-19 three times. Should we be worried about reinfection?
Simple headline. Simple answer: Yes, of course we should be. This potentially makes it far worse than we ever expected it to be and the ability of our immune system to deal with it may be seriously compromised. This is a complete game-changer and, in one fell swoop, effectively justifies whatever draconian action governments have taken (and might intend to take in the future) to halt its transmission.
The article continues
“The 68-year-old was in a bad way.
He had Covid-19, and his heart was failing.
Then, amazingly, he recovered.
After a few days recuperating, he tested negative to Covid-19.
A little over a week later, he took another test – which came back positive.
Back he went to hospital.
Seven days later, tests showed he was negative.
Then, four days later, he tested positive again.
Back again to hospital.
“The unnamed man, reported in a Chinese pre-peer-reviewed study on Wednesday, is among the first to be diagnosed with Covid-19 three separate times. But many other patients have cleared the virus, only to later test positive again.
This has raised concerns among many about the risk of getting reinfected with the dangerous virus – and bigger questions about what it would mean for the development of a vaccine if we did not get a strong and lasting immunity to the virus.
Wait a minute. Is this entire assertion based on just one case of one 68 year old man?
- He is 68 years old
- He is from China
- The article is based on a “pre-peer reviewed study”
- He is among the first to be diagnosed 3 separate times
- Many other patients have cleared the virus only to test positive again
- This has raised concerns among many
That he is unnamed is immaterial but the fact that he is 68 places him smack bang in the middle of the “at risk” age group. Nowhere does the article address possible co-morbidities that the “pre-peer reviewed” report clearly states he has:
“He had a history of hypertension, diabetes and coronary heart disease.”
In that context, is it reasonable to report that he
“was in a bad way. He had Covid-19, and his heart was failing.”
He did not get COVID-19 three times as stated in the headline. He tested positive three times, separated by negative tests.
The writer clearly misses the most basic contradiction of his own writing: If this patient is “among the first to be diagnosed 3 separate times” (keeping in mind he wasn’t diagnosed 3 separate times but tested positive 3 times, separated by negative tests), there clearly can be little supporting evidence of others in the same position, making this sensationalism at best.
If there are any other such patients, surely the actual number needs to be quoted so readers know what proportion of the nearly two and a half million confirmed cases worldwide might fall into this category of “recurring cases”.
Secondly, what does that do to his assertion that “many other patients have cleared the virus only to test positive again”? How many is “many”? Is it 5? 500? 5,000? 50,000, 500,000? At what number does this actually become factual?
We’ve all seen headlines questioning false positives and false negatives in test results and to be fair, the article does mention towards the end that scientists in Melbourne have told The Age
“The cases of reinfection – like the 68-year-old – were probably false positives”
For those of us who can be bothered reading the actual report, there is good reason to question the point of such a headline and indeed such a story.
The author claims “This has raised concerns among many”. Again I ask: Who exactly and how many exactly?
It’s irresponsible, inaccurate and dishonest to publish such emotive and sensational stories as though they are major and of great concern to “many”. Very few people will read past the headline and even fewer will read past the first few paragraphs to find that there are no “many” and this really is a non-story.
Small wonder we end up with overreaction on social media and politicians and bureaucrats floundering about responding in a constant state of suspended animation trying to work out which ‘facts’ are facts ahead of the baying social media masses.
Mainstream media organizations are daily proving themselves to be sad shadows of their former selves. Quality journalism is a figment of their collective imaginations.
No wonder they’re losing their battle for survival in a changing and ever more challenging world. They can’t even get the basics right or ask the most basic questions.
This may eventually turn out to be a story of some value but, at the moment, it’s cheap sensational garbage and a complete and utter waste of time and space.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.
