Thread by @SalvMattera

Few people take COVID seriously anymore. Part of this may be from experience - people got COVID a couple times, recovered, and think they're fine - but a lot can be blamed on the media. Here are some tactics the media continues to use to downplay COVID and mislead the public:

Referring to it in the past tense. Most headlines will use the word "during" when referring to COVID, such as "during the pandemic".

Some will be even bolder, and explicitly declare that we are living in a "post-pandemic" world.

This is both technically untrue, and obviously absurd. COVID is still a pandemic, according to the WHO. Beyond the semantics, about 1,000 Americans have died each week from COVID for most of the last month. Meanwhile, the Federal government is currently offering free COVID tests to every American. If this is post-pandemic, the word has lost all meaning.

Similar to that is a tactic of acknowledging the harm of COVID infections, but implying that the risk has passed. Take this article with the headline "here's what covid may have done to your brain"

Writing the headline that way implies a sort of fatalism. You probably had COVID in the past, and it might have done this to your brain, but oh well - you don't have a time machine; you can't change it. A more honest headline would be "here's what COVID can do to your brain"

A headline like that would instead spark caution and concern. If the headline was written that way, you might think "I already had COVID, but I care about my brain, so I'm going to try not to get it again." A very different approach.

Here's another: many articles that cover COVID research use the phrase "up to" as in "the impacts of COVID on the brain can last up to a year"

Now, if you have at least a basic understanding of English, you know the phrase "up to" implies "maximum" as in, "this scale can hold up to 300 lbs". So you'd read this article and think, "a year is a long time! That's terrible! But at least they're back to normal after a year!"

You'd think that, but you'd be wrong. If you actually look at the research they're citing, the researchers stopped measuring the impact after a year. That means the impact may last more than a year - in fact, it may even be lifelong.

That's far different, and much more dire. I don't know if the person who wrote this actually read the research, but what they should have said is "at least" - as in, at least a year. In this example, a year isn't the maximum, it's the minimum. Again, completely different meaning

This is just one example, but if you look, you'll see this play out over and over again. Find any article that uses the phrase "up to", look at the research yourself, and there's a 95%+ chance that it actually should have said "at least"

Another tactic is to use overly optimistic headlines that aren't supported by the underlying article. This is especially common with coverage of long COVID. Here's a recent example:

Now, it's widely known that many people, perhaps most, never read beyond the headline. So maybe you've heard of long COVID, and you're sort of concerned about it but you're not too aware of it. One day you're scrolling and you come across this headline.

You probably think, "that's great! Sounds like they're making real progress and I don't need to worry!" But again, you'd be wrong. In fact, you don't have to read beyond the first few paragraphs to realize the headline doesn't make any sense at all. The trial failed.

Lastly, in almost every article about the damage COVID causes, there's a constant trend of "bothsidesing", even when it doesn't really make sense or can't be supported. Here's a recent article that talks about the brain damage COVID is known to cause:

It cites several studies that have shown how even a single COVID infection can have a measurable, negative impact on people's cognitive abilities, but then cheapens that by arguing that the "lockdowns" might have had a similar effect.

As if to say, "yes, COVID is bad for your brain, but we can't do anything about it, because if we do, it'll be just as bad!" The problem is there's no evidence to support that view. The single "study" cited in the piece didn't include a control group.

And this is common. Articles talking about the damage COVID does the the heart will make vague references to "stress" and "missed cardiology appointments" but never actually provide any solid evidence or measurable impact.

If you find yourself reading one of these articles in the future, look at the evidence they give for "both sides" - which is stronger? You'll typically find that the evidence of how COVID damages the body is strong, and clear cut. While the evidence for the impact of "lockdowns" relies mostly on anecdotes.