To make sense of coronavirus, we need to embrace doubt

To make sense of coronavirus, we need to embrace doubt: Get the numbers straight, but then question them

As powerful as they may be, coronavirus figures also
have their limitations. From the very start, mistakes were made by both
laymen and experts. Let me mention three emblematic examples.

First: misleadingly precise numbers.
It was immediately clear that the actual coronavirus cases were much
higher than those reported in official figures, and circulated, often
uncritically, on social media. Since in most countries not everyone was
getting tested, the figures could at best gauge the lower bound of the
actual numbers.

Second: skewed samples. For instance, a study by
Stanford researchers to estimate the prevalence of the virus in Santa
Clara County, California, concluded that Covid-19 was much more
widespread than initially believed. Researchers had used Facebook ads to
recruit test subjects, which is a convenient method, but also one that
distorts the numbers, as people who feel sick are likely to self-select
into such a study in order to get tested.

Third: mistaking correlation for causation. There were endless speculations about which countries did “best” in tackling the pandemic.
It is tempting to gaze at the figures and come up with some facile
explanation for the differences. Some have claimed masks are the
solution, others that we should all have robust contact-tracing like
South Korea or a laissez-faire approach like Sweden. But there is no
silver-bullet solution. Countries have different testing strategies,
different demographics, different healthcare systems. And some countries
simply had more luck, as the pandemic knocked on their door later and
gave them more time to prepare. How countries fared probably depends on a
complex interaction of many factors, which will take years to
disentangle.

So how can we make sense of this crisis? Obviously, numeracy helps.