Did Twitter make flu fears viral?
Now that the panic over the H1N1 flu strain has somewhat subsided, experts are contemplating what role Twitter played in helping the virus, commonly known as swine flu, go viral.
The H1N1 virus has caused around 6,500 infections in 33 countries and 65 people have died so far, according to the World Health Organization. Common seasonal flu kills up to 500,000 people a year worldwide.
So did Twitter put the media before the message and escalate anxieties by propagating rumors of biological attack and pork production infection?
Or did the Twittersphere prove itself to be the first choice in information for the wired era?
Tell us what you think.
A vaccine needed for bad statistics
- Eric Auchard is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own –
If you look no further than the latest headlines, you might think a worldwide flu pandemic was already underway with a very real threat to millions of lives.
While there are many unanswered questions early on in the outbreak of flu from Mexico, it is crucial to remember that the number of deaths and reported infections remain small — even if its spread across the globe has proved worryingly rapid.
While the infected need access to medical care and anti-viral drugs, the rest of the world needs an inoculation against scary statistics and misinformation.
The Internet Age allows facts and rumour to spread almost instantaneously. But knowing of outbreaks across the globe must not be confused with risks of catching the disease.
Already in this outbreak, Lebanon’s health minister has called for a halt to the national custom of greeting one another with kisses. Several countries including Russia and China have banned pork imports from Mexico and parts of the United States in the belief that meat could spread the flu.
So far, up to 149 are reported to have died of swine flu in Mexico. The World Health Organisation has upgraded the level of pandemic threat to four on a scale of six — sustained human-to-human transmission. Stage five signals an “imminent” pandemic.
Not many statisticians are currently getting worked up and hysterical about the swine flu. It’s people in other professions and the media, like the columnist below.
But it’s typically the statisticians who get blamed.
Not what the economy’s doctor ordered
– James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own –
Besides being a human tragedy, a deadly pandemic is, quite literally, the last thing a global economy suffering a huge drop off in trade and activity needs.
To be very clear, we’ve no idea how severe or widespread the evolving outbreak of a new form of swine flu will be and indications that it seems to be becoming milder as it travels from Mexico are reassuring.
You only need to look at photos of deserted streets, shops and theatres in Mexico City to get a sense of the hit to consumer demand, but the potential for damage to production and distribution is profound too.
One guide for the impact of a dire pandemic is the experience during the Spanish Flu, which spread rapidly across much of the world during 1918 and 1919. About a quarter of the global population was infected and somewhere between 50 and 100 million people lost their lives, according to estimates.
Economic data from the time is woefully thin, but the period of the outbreak in the U.S. corresponds almost exactly with a period the National Bureau of Economic Research deems a contraction.
Businesses of all sorts were badly affected, from life insurers, many of which had to suspend dividends to deal with higher claims, to a telephone company in Tennessee which had so many operators out sick that it had to issue a plea for fewer “unnecessary calls”.
Can we human be less arrogant and accept that nature does not revolve around us? Viruses, like any other life form, are competing with the rest and periodically they are on the upper hand.
About 95% of the native Americans were killed by deases introduced from Europe when the first Europeans landed. Darwin’s law prevails.
from For the Record:
Flu outbreak: Walking the line between hyping and helping
Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.
There’s nothing like a disease outbreak to highlight the value of the media in alerting and informing the public in the face of an emergency.
There’s also nothing like it to bring out some of our more excessive behavior, essentially shouting “Run for your lives! (but, whatever you do, stay tuned, keep reading the website and don't forget to buy the paper!).”
An outbreak of a form of influenza, which was known as swine flu before the World Health Organization changed the name, has killed scores in Mexico and infected others in the United States, Canada, Europe and New Zealand. It's already having an effect on markets and travel plans, in addition to the obvious impact on public health.
The impact on markets could become more significant in time, but the impact on the media was practically immediate.
Cable television programmers went into crisis mode and a look at newspaper front pages and website home pages around the world showed a range of responses, from the almost hysterical to the concerned and more measured.
- In the New York Daily News: “SWINE FLU SPREADS!” (though it was played below a sports story on the New York Yankees losing to the Boston Red Sox).
- In the New York Post: “HOG WILD!” (also playing second to the Yankees' humiliation, but illustrated with a pig sucking on a thermometer).
- In The Japan Times (using a Reuters story): "Swine flu in Mexico sparks global panic"
- In the South China Morning Post (which certainly has experience in covering bird flu and SARS): “Asia on high alert for swine flu as airports step up checks.”
- In The Guardian: “Swine flu: call for global action as outbreak spreads.”
- In the Toronto Sun: "CALM URGED AS FLU FEARS GROW."
Hey Raul from May 4th, 2009 – Re: I have a conspiracy theory. I can surely agree with your written expression, but only positively on one point – It is a conspiracy. And, these situations are no longer theories. YouTube this: Luke Rudkowski – ‘U.S. media doesn’t want truth’. Do the research.
I second that.