I wrote an op-ed for @WashingtonPost in '04 called "When the Buzz Bites Back." In it, I coined a term-infodemic-which actually ended up in the dictionary. The piece described how the spread of information around an epidemic can have worse consequences than the underlying disease.
Since then, with the advent and spread of social media and the ubiquity of smart phones, the potential impact of "infodemics" has grown geometrically. The facts spread do not have to be true and indeed untrue ones can be among the most damaging in terms of consequences.
Indeed, harnessing that virality is now a key driver of disinformation campaigns (infodemics do not have to be related to underlying epidemics, of course.) COVID-19 may be the best case study for this phenomenon we have yet seen.
Even without knowing the full impact of the disease--in fact, in part because we don't know it--the economic, social, political and other consequences of this disorder may well be greater in the long run than the illness itself.
This does not minimize the importance of the disease. What it should do however, is send a message to public officials that containing the infodemic is as important and can be just as challenging as containing the epidemic.
It is a lesson that the U.S. government, the Chinese government and many other governments have not yet learned. They don't realize that their mixed signals, mismanaged communications programs, transparent lies and other ill-considered efforts make the situation worse...
...triggering the spread of rumors and obscuring the facts that are as essential to containing the infodemic as are good public hygiene and science to containing the epidemic. We must learn these lessons or much worse could be yet to come.
