New England Journal of Medicine: “the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%)”

The New England Journal of Medicine recently reported the following:

“the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%)”

So then why is the mainstream media reporting much larger numbers?

Is the mainstream media trying to scare people in order to get bigger ad revenues?

Is the mainstream media scaring people in order to try to make Trump look bad?

April 1, 2020. Tags: , , , , . COVID-19, Health care, Media bias.

One Comment

  1. truittww@gmail.com replied:

    I asked my friend, a retired microbiologist who specialized in infectious diseases his whole career about your comments here. His reply is:

    Agree with the statement or his implications? Cannot agree or disagree b/c (1) the statement is out of context and (2) the questions are posed as implications of his opinion. Maybe I am way off on this; however, here’s my take.

    I’d have to read the NEJM article and determine why the authors of the article made that statement. I’d have to read the article in context and then determine their rationale, and, if applicable, data to support the conclusion. My assumption is the comment is backed by reason and data. I have been reading the NEJM for many years. Top tier med journal.

    This might be an example of either hype, irresponsible journalism, sensationalism, or all three b/c (1) the author selects a single sentence/conclusion (“…the overall clinical…0.1%…”) out of context, (2) then asks three extremely leading questions which are not at all related to the theme of the statement, and (3) does not present his facts. The statement has nothing to do with his questions:

    1. So then why is* the mainstream media reporting much larger numbers?

    [What large numbers? Larger than what? Numbers of cases? Numbers of deaths? Data?]

    2. Is* the mainstream media trying to scare people in order to get bigger ad revenues?

    [Which ad revenues? Which media? Data?]

    3. Is* the mainstream media scaring people in order to try to make Trump look bad?

    [Examples? Which people are scared? How so? Data?]

    In addition, the statement (“…the overall clinical…0.1%…”) is centered around the key term “clinical” consequences. That has to do with patients’ the actual clinical disease process, clinical presentation, clinical condition, treatment, results, recovery, outcome, and other clinical parameters and variables. It has nothing to do with large numbers, ad revenues, and making Trump look bad.**

    Conclusion: The Squirrel Hill author could have saved time by simply stating his opinion which, I can only assume from his presentation, is the mainstream* media (whatever that means) are** all in the bag against Trump.

    Regards,

    Mr. Know-It-All

    * I’ve never quite determined what the term mainstream media means.

    ** The author needs a grammar lesson. Media is a pleural noun (like deer); therefore, Media are…, Are the media…, The media are against…, The media have reported…, The media meet… (The singular of media is medium.) I will not hold it against him b/c 99% of all reporters and writers do the same thing.

    ***No one needs to make Trump look bad. Each time he says or does anything he looks bad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Trackback URI

%d bloggers like this: