Whether in family WhatsApp groups, on Twitter timelines, or while reading the daily news, we are faced with a constant avalanche of claims about Covid-19 that can baffle, scare, and confuse us. This certainly has not changed in the third year of the pandemic.
Two weeks ago, news of a coronavirus variant dubbed “Deltacron” with merged characteristics of the delta and omicron variants spread like wildfire. Now the virologist who was quoted in the original report says he was misunderstood. The reported results were likely due to sample contamination. In fact, there is no “Deltacron” variant.
As someone who has read thousands of scientific articles and news about covid-19 and has condensed what we know about the pandemic into a book, I see it every day. I have seen reports that smoking reduces the chance of severe covid-19 and others that it increases the chance. I winced when credible media reported that tall people are twice as likely to be infected with the coronavirus that causes covid-19. And then there are other erroneous and outlandish claims that approved vaccines cause loss of fertility or “a form of AIDS.”
How can we safely navigate this infodemic?
It is important to be able to know that the scientific results behind the claims come from a reliable source and have been independently reviewed by experts. It is also important to accept that knowledge at any given time is incomplete and that science corrects itself. Even many experts miscalculated the duration of the pandemic, the severity of the waves of infection and the ferocity of the growing strains of concern.
But it is helpful to have our own process for evaluating scientific and health claims. After all, they affect our ability to make informed decisions about important aspects of our lives. How do we know what is accurate in the face of changing information?
First, the scientific claims must come from a reliable source with a reasonable track record of getting things right. I would much rather trust the World Health Organization (even if they have missteps) than forward WhatsApp posts.
Second, in order to assess claims, the primary sources of information must be accessible. Ideally, a primary source of information should be a technical abstract from a trusted organization, or a preprint or scientific article published on a preprint server or trusted journal website. If you or someone else cannot independently see the underlying data, then you should take it at face value. This is when claims, especially extraordinary ones, become more difficult to assess.
Third, we must keep our guard up and not accept everything we read at face value. This especially applies to theories that align with our own beliefs. Very intelligent people are not immune to confirmation bias. In fact, they may be better at seeking out and selecting information that confirms their firmly held assumptions. Developing critical thinking skills is like building muscle strength. Anyone can do this by critically examining claims. But without practice, these abilities also weaken over time.
It is reasonable to approach health claims made for large, heterogeneous populations with skepticism. Individual results are important, but may not be representative of the population as a whole. I have seen reports that Indians are more likely to suffer from severe covid-19 and others that we are less likely. We should evaluate these claims separately, but we should expect plausible explanations of how these conclusions were reached. There should be ways to refute them. The philosopher of science Karl Popper called this the essential scientific criterion of falsifiability.
We don’t have to be skeptical of all claims all the time, but we should be prepared to apply scientist Carl Sagan’s standard that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” In other words, the claim that exercise is good for heart health is consistent with existing scientific research and doesn’t require extraordinary scrutiny (at least from someone who isn’t an expert). But if a similar health claim is made for cigarette smoking, it should raise alarm.
Finally, even after scrutinizing a scientific claim, it’s okay to say, “I don’t know if this is correct.” Science takes time. It is perfectly reasonable not to have an immediate opinion. We don’t have to reflexively share what we hear or read. We may choose to wait until more is known.
Anirban Mahapatra, a scientist by training, is the author of COVID-19: Separating Fact From Fiction
The opinions expressed are personal.
.
