Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles.
I feel that some medical experts, in trying to be as accurate as possible epidemiologically, may be in fact welcoming manipulation by the likes of Trump and others. I have repeatedly seen people trying to dispel worry by, quite correctly in a mathematical sense, stating that Coronavirus may be less worrying than it initially seems because ‘there are likely to be many people that have been infected but only showed mild symptoms’. This is then reflected by the language used by Trump.
Whilst it is true that with any disease there will be mild cases that are not reported, I argue that this is vacuous reasoning that should not change how we interface with Coronavirus. Given how poorly we have been detecting it worldwide, with testing largely delayed or non-existent we are not in a position to be overly considering asymptomatic cases in terms of risk to the individual. We are only really dealing with those that are clinically apparent at this time, and should not allow our language to be distorted to suggest lesser risk. The risk to more vulnerable patients is in no way decreased by the fact that many others will be able to battle through a Coronavirus infection: it is time to stop such a minimisation narrative, especially given that these people who display few symptoms and generally do well will be in the perfect position to spread the virus to more vulnerable members of society.
A strong, coherent response is needed, and as a profession we must ensure that our efforts to provide the scientific truth do not leave room for partial understanding and manipulation.
Dear Editor,
Influenza spreads around the world in yearly outbreaks, resulting in millions cases of severe illness. Influenza pandemics resulted in millions of deaths, incomparably more than from the current coronavirus outbreak. Why so much tumult about another respiratory infection? The travel restrictions, quarantines, contact tracing etc. seem to be senseless because the virus is already spreading worldwide like influenza did repeatedly in the past. Numerous mild cases will be inevitably missed. Only some individual protection measures are sensible, such as avoiding unnecessary contacts and wearing a mask in public: nothing new since the influenza pandemic of 1918.
Re: Trump claims public health warnings on covid-19 are a conspiracy against him
Dear Editor,
I feel that some medical experts, in trying to be as accurate as possible epidemiologically, may be in fact welcoming manipulation by the likes of Trump and others. I have repeatedly seen people trying to dispel worry by, quite correctly in a mathematical sense, stating that Coronavirus may be less worrying than it initially seems because ‘there are likely to be many people that have been infected but only showed mild symptoms’. This is then reflected by the language used by Trump.
Whilst it is true that with any disease there will be mild cases that are not reported, I argue that this is vacuous reasoning that should not change how we interface with Coronavirus. Given how poorly we have been detecting it worldwide, with testing largely delayed or non-existent we are not in a position to be overly considering asymptomatic cases in terms of risk to the individual. We are only really dealing with those that are clinically apparent at this time, and should not allow our language to be distorted to suggest lesser risk. The risk to more vulnerable patients is in no way decreased by the fact that many others will be able to battle through a Coronavirus infection: it is time to stop such a minimisation narrative, especially given that these people who display few symptoms and generally do well will be in the perfect position to spread the virus to more vulnerable members of society.
A strong, coherent response is needed, and as a profession we must ensure that our efforts to provide the scientific truth do not leave room for partial understanding and manipulation.
Competing interests: No competing interests