By Carina Smith
It was early on in the COVID-19 pandemic when I received a call from my grandma warning me to stop taking ibuprofen because if I contracted the virus it could make the symptoms work. She emailed me a CNN article that cited a number of different sources about the possible harms of ibuprofen and the warnings from France’s health ministry.
The World Health Organization also issued a statement advising against the use of ibuprofen. Soon my social media feeds were full of people warning their loved ones to avoid using the over the counter medication, sharing articles that no one fully read and headlines that failed to mention one key fact: many doctors were saying that there is no proof ibuprofen will affect any symptoms of COVID-19.
We want to believe that science is perfect, or at least somewhere in the realm of perfection. But that is not the case. Science is trial and error, running test after test, creating hypotheses and throwing them away. Credible scientific studies are peer-reviewed and picked apart with a fine-tooth comb. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to COVID, scientists still have a long way to go before they can bring us concrete facts.
People want facts during the pandemic. But in a time when science is scrambling to find answers, it is important for journalists to spread facts instead of fear.
Right now, journalism is one of the only ways we are able to stay connected with what is going on in the world around us as we are all isolated. But journalism is also focused on reporting the facts and we cannot get lazy in our reporting. New studies are coming out every single day surrounding COVID-19 but that does not mean they are accepted as fact.
Our role as journalists is to do our homework. We owe it to our readers to provide them with all of the information when new studies are released and quoted by leaders. One study explored the possibilities of using hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. The drug is typically used to treat malaria, lupus and arthritis. President Donald Trump tweeted about this study in late March, furthering the discussion around this new possible treatment.
The issue lies in the fact that this study was accepted only one day after it had been submitted. Typically, the process behind such a journal would take months or years to be written, peer-reviewed, accepted and then edited. This study was pushed through at an alarmingly fast rate and some of the outlets that reported on the study failed to mention this key fact.
The demand for studies around COVID-19 is putting the pressure on scientists worldwide, but that does not mean our job as journalists has to change. We are still responsible for fact-checking what we can and providing honest skepticism to the unknown. Now is not a time for journalists and scientists to be at odds with one another, but rather build bridges and connections to try and get the most accurate and up-to-date information out to the public.