The anti-catastrophism to make political noise and sell newspapers

Traditional media are collecting opinions from experts and institutions that dispel the ghost of a new pandemic like covid-19 in the case of hantavirus. On the cover of Abc, for example, we read: “Expert virologist on viruses: ‘The risk of a large outbreak is very, very small’”. Or in ARA: “Message of reassurance from the WHO: ‘Hantavirus is not covid, it is very different’”. On the other hand, the cover of El Mundo was much more alarmist: “Experts warn: ‘Contagion is simpler than announced’”. It not only generates alarm, but also excites, moreover, the paranoia of “They are deceiving us”, which is usually fuel for disinformation campaigns and general 'ikerjimenitzation' in the public arena.

The fact is that, inside, the article is quite balanced. It is recalled on several occasions that most contacts occur through close contact and the different messages of reassurance given by authorities and scientists are recorded. From here on, some exceptions are indeed mentioned where a person with a very high viral load has been able to transmit the virus without the need for this close and prolonged exposure: these are the so-called super-spreaders. But the piece does not generate the anxiety that the cover headline conveys. I cannot know, of course, but my bet is that the title was not put by the person who wrote the report, because it takes the weed by the leaves of the exception and breaks the general tone of the text. Added to this is the worn-out use of the generic “experts” when in reality they are a couple of people chosen very consciously to reinforce the thesis you had already decided on from the start. Whether they are looking for noise with which to gain political advantage, or because fear is a driver of sales, the newspaper should have shown more responsibility on such a delicate matter.