At the time of writing, the spread of coronavirus, or COVID-19, across the world has been labelled a pandemic by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Countries are beginning to lock down their borders and cancel sporting events and other mass gatherings in an attempt to slow down the virus' proliferation. The situation is sufficiently serious that even Donald Trump has dialled back his previous denialist rhetoric and implemented a ban on anyone travelling to the United States from Europe. Who would have thought that anything could be dangerous enough to make Donald Trump change his mind?
Coronavirus has inspired reflection on the way our globalised world makes us vulnerable to these kinds of outbreaks. It has even encouraged some thought as to the advantage that the dictatorial Chinese regime has in combatting the virus compared to the freer democracies of the West, where any measures taken can be challenged and debated in a way the Chinese state will never have to deal with. What is more curious is the fact that so few words have been expended on the way the virus has been exacerbated by an online culture driven by the idea of, you guessed it, going viral.
Coronavirus has inspired reflection on the way our globalised world makes us vulnerable to these kinds of outbreaks. It has even encouraged some thought as to the advantage that the dictatorial Chinese regime has in combatting the virus compared to the freer democracies of the West, where any measures taken can be challenged and debated in a way the Chinese state will never have to deal with. What is more curious is the fact that so few words have been expended on the way the virus has been exacerbated by an online culture driven by the idea of, you guessed it, going viral.
As one might expect, the rapid spread of coronavirus has led to much speculation about how many cases there really are compared to the official figures and how deadly it is going to prove to be. The Independent reports that government documents suggest that 80% of Britons could contract the virus and lead to half a million deaths. Bill Gates is reported by the Telegraph as saying that the spread of the virus into Africa could cause ten million to lose their lives. From bird flu to SARS, this would not be the first time a viral outbreak has been greeted with evident overreaction.
The problem is that while the intentions of the likes of Bill Gates or those who leaked the government memo to the Independent might be positive - presenting a worst-case scenario to shock people out of complacency - their use of these heightened estimates only adds noise to an online environment which amplifies fear and sensationalism, drowning out the need for sensible vigilance and caution. As with viral memes, these estimates exist to draw attention to themselves and provoke a reaction, but a shocked and fearful populace is a terrible outcome for a situation which requires considered, careful action to avoid worsening.
In the UK, thus far one of the least seriously affected of the European countries, there have been reports of panic-buying, with packs of loo paper and hand sanitiser stripped from major supermarket shelves in bulk. The rationale for stockpiling soap and hand sanitiser is excessive but at least sound and backed up by expert advice: by most accounts, the diligent washing of hands does indeed seem to slow the spread of the virus. Doing so with loo paper, however, only demonstrates how much panic-buying is driven by fear: there is no suggestion that diarrhoea is a symptom of coronavirus and even though potential infectees are encouraged to self-isolate, it is only for two weeks: hardly long enough to necessitate the average person bulk-buying loo paper.
The problem is that while the intentions of the likes of Bill Gates or those who leaked the government memo to the Independent might be positive - presenting a worst-case scenario to shock people out of complacency - their use of these heightened estimates only adds noise to an online environment which amplifies fear and sensationalism, drowning out the need for sensible vigilance and caution. As with viral memes, these estimates exist to draw attention to themselves and provoke a reaction, but a shocked and fearful populace is a terrible outcome for a situation which requires considered, careful action to avoid worsening.
In the UK, thus far one of the least seriously affected of the European countries, there have been reports of panic-buying, with packs of loo paper and hand sanitiser stripped from major supermarket shelves in bulk. The rationale for stockpiling soap and hand sanitiser is excessive but at least sound and backed up by expert advice: by most accounts, the diligent washing of hands does indeed seem to slow the spread of the virus. Doing so with loo paper, however, only demonstrates how much panic-buying is driven by fear: there is no suggestion that diarrhoea is a symptom of coronavirus and even though potential infectees are encouraged to self-isolate, it is only for two weeks: hardly long enough to necessitate the average person bulk-buying loo paper.
At the opposite extreme are those who dismiss or belittle the seriousness of the outbreak, suggesting it is little worse than the flu and that the numbers are inflated. This is not necessarily wrong, insofar as the virus' symptoms are much like those of the flu and reports like those in the Independent and Telegraph are indeed reporting inflated numbers, but such attitudes can lead to the kind of complacency which can make the situation worse than it needs to be.
It is immaterial whether one blames those who put hyperbolic numbers into the public consciousness or newspapers which report them in a manner that attaches a greater degree of inevitability to the speculation than is realistic. What is remarkable is how much in common this type of reporting has with the kind of behaviour used by fame-hungry internet denizens to make their images and gifs go viral. Their aim is not to show realistic behaviour, but to produce a short, sharp emotional shock which will be passed on by all those who experience it. This in turn encourages other aspiring internet stars to do the same to an even more extreme degree, over and over again, until what is being depicted ceases to have any sort of meaning and instead becomes simple currency, shared not for what is depicted, but for the user's reaction to it. The user becomes their own kind of producer, only reactive rather than active.
Those who produce inflated coronavirus figures may say they are doing so with the best of intentions, but with the internet acting as a megaphone for sensational rather than fact, they risk turning the conveyance of information to alleviate a genuinely dangerous situation into the same kind of meaningless reaction economy that spreads images and video clips across the internet. Suggesting that ten million deaths is a possibility, when after two months the total number of deaths worldwide (at time of writing) stands at around 4,750, is such extreme speculation that it cannot help but produce an extreme reaction: creating the kind of fear which expresses itself in irrational panic-buying, or scepticism which risks legitimate information about the virus' severity to be dismissed as hyperbole from so-called experts.
Those who produce inflated coronavirus figures may say they are doing so with the best of intentions, but with the internet acting as a megaphone for sensational rather than fact, they risk turning the conveyance of information to alleviate a genuinely dangerous situation into the same kind of meaningless reaction economy that spreads images and video clips across the internet. Suggesting that ten million deaths is a possibility, when after two months the total number of deaths worldwide (at time of writing) stands at around 4,750, is such extreme speculation that it cannot help but produce an extreme reaction: creating the kind of fear which expresses itself in irrational panic-buying, or scepticism which risks legitimate information about the virus' severity to be dismissed as hyperbole from so-called experts.
It is often the case that the reaction to a terrible event becomes more damaging in the long run than the event itself. Though it is encouraging to see the UK's Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, celebrated for his measured and realistic responses to the virus, vigilance is needed in not allowing coronavirus to become politicised - used as a cudgel to beat the pet-hate ideological issue du jour - or hyperbolised. No matter how positive the intent, dishonesty can never produce an honest outcome. Lost in the havoc of reaction and counter-reaction is the need to take sensible precautions to beat the virus as it is in the here-and-now.
OTHER ARTICLES YOU MAY ENJOY
