Why the world counts on honest stats in a pandemic

Public demand for transparency in data about all things COVID-19 has pushed institutions and countries to new levels of accountability.

AP
Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey and Dr. Cara Christ, director of the Department of Arizona Health Services, leave a July 9 news conference after speaking about the latest coronavirus statistics.

Compared with other events in history, the COVID-19 pandemic may be the one that has been the most widely scrutinized in the shortest span of time. People are hungry for data about the virus’s origins, effects, and remedies. “It’s only in moments of crisis that we begin to pay attention [to data],” writes Arunabh Ghosh, a Harvard professor and author of a new book about statistics in China.

Yet this hunger for information has also led to a demand for honesty and transparency in the data collected and used by authorities. Can test trials for a new vaccine be trusted? Is my employer flying blind on safety data in reopening the workplace? Bad data can lead to panic or a false sense of security. In short, people expect accurate analysis of both the threat and the solutions to help lessen their fear of vulnerability.

“It is in moments of disaster response and relief that the values of open government can come under intense pressure, but can also meaningfully contribute to better outcomes,” states the international group Open Government Partnership.

Around the world, officials are on notice to be more forthcoming as the pandemic endures. In a few places, such as Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea, leaders have been praised for their transparency during the crisis. In China, officials from the World Health Organization arrived in Wuhan July 13 to start an investigation of COVID-19’s origins. Beijing has suppressed many of those who have challenged its changing narratives about the virus’s beginnings. To rebuild lost trust, China can grant unfettered access for the WHO and other international investigators.

In the United States, President Donald Trump has been criticized for a July 10 decision to set up a “coronavirus data hub” in the Department of Health and Human Services. It would replace data collection by the more respected Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unease about the federal reporting structure – as well as Mr. Trump’s leadership in general – has put pressure on states to improve their data.

A July 21 report from Resolve to Save Lives, a nonprofit led by former CDC chief Tom Frieden, found states largely failing in collecting and publishing data on 15 “essential indicators” of COVID-19. For nine of the 15 indicators, more than half of states were not reporting at all. Yet another study by The COVID Tracking Project found on the whole, the quality of state data across 16 metrics “has improved dramatically.” The median grade for states has gone from B to A over the past three months.

Public demand for data is driving a new accountability in institutions. Honesty is a powerful disinfectant against the virus. It helps garner support during the long struggle against COVID-19. The people and their leaders must be partners in truth telling.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.