Two years ago most of us took little notice of virology, vaccines or pandemics. Different strains of flu came and went, but we didn’t take much interest in which strain it was. In the early winter the doctor gave us a jab that may, or may not, have done any good, but we had no interest in which pharmaceutical company had made it, or whether it was better than any others.

Nowadays,  which vaccine we have just been given an armful of is a common topic of conversation. We nod sagely at the perceived benefits of 2 shots of ‘Astrafizer’ followed by a ‘Johnzenica’ booster, and express concern about the likelihood of side effects.  We then regale each other with stories of how somebody we know developed amnesia because the nurse didn’t aspirate the needle properly, and whether the time between doses had been more or less favourable. We don’t really know much about it, and certainly not enough to have any sort of worthwhile opinion, but it makes us feel better, more involved with the process.  It’s all pretty harmless conversation. 

Unfortunately, that all begins to change when it gets more public, particularly with social media, where misinformation and alarmist news can travel like wildfire.  But again, unless people are totally dependant on Facebook for information, there’s not much of an issue.

But the real problem begins when newspapers and more formal media outlets get involved, because if the information is in writing and looks properly typeset, if it is written in an authoritative way and the issues are eloquently put, it is much more likely to be believed.  It’s not that the journalists involved are actually better informed than the rest of us, it’s simply that they’re more practiced at glossing over the fact.

For many years, idiot that I was, I had naively assumed that newspapers were interested in promulgating the truth.  It took ‘Deep Throat’ to correct this illusion with his advice to Bob Woodward in ‘All the Presidents Men’ to ‘follow the money’.  Once you start seeing the world through these spectacles many things in life start becoming clearer. For instance, you realize that all newspaper owners are really interested in is selling newspapers.   Telling the news impartially and making the readers better informed in a balanced way is not a priority. They look at the potential market, decide which sector to target based on a sales/profit analysis and then tailor their reporting to appeal to those people.

So the editor of the newspaper decides the overall editorial policy regarding each particular issue, and his journalists write articles to reflect this policy.  These journalists are good at writing, but not particularly good at specialist subjects.  Thus when it involves anything remotely scientific or technological, their lack of understanding of the necessary scientific processes becomes clear.  The giveaway is the all too often indulgence in what is called, ‘Cherry Picking’.  In this, the writer looks for scientific articles that back up their preconceived views, and ignores any articles that don’t.  So instead of presenting a balanced assessment of the situation, based on all the evidence, they present a biased view, coloured by their initial prejudice.   It’s a dangerous practice, since to the inexpert reader they appear knowledgeable and authoritative.

Some excellent examples of this have occurred in the Daily Telegraph over the last two years. No matter that the SAGE committee has more Ph.Ds.’ between them than Fleet Street in its entirety, as far as the commentators are concerned, they are the experts.   Thus, we have one of them, who had no scientific qualifications at all, accusing SAGE of ‘indulging in pseudoscience’.  Others made claims that masks were useless, that the modelling was nonsense for example.  

As I write, a headline has appeared, written by the great journalist, Alison Pearson, claiming that compared to earlier COVID variants, ‘Omicron is a pussycat’. This was just after the top man, Professor Sir Chris Whitty has pointed out that, “There is nothing good about omicron”, and there’s a clear spike in hospitalisations.  Poor deluded Alison, not a scientific or other relevant qualification to her name, thinking she is better informed than the country’s top medical advisor and practicing consultant.  So full of her own self-importance (since she writes for the Daily Telegraph) that she can’t see how silly she looks.  

So next time you’re ill, are you going to consult, (a)  a doctor, or (b) somebody in the pub?  I think the answer is obvious!