How the COVID-19 pandemic has emboldened ‘armchair’ virologists

armchair coronavirus expert
Credit: Keystone/Stringer
[W]hen the Olympics are being broadcast, I transform into an armchair commentator, catching a full-blown case of what I like to call “Olympic fever.” Biathlon, hammer throw, curling, Greco-Roman wrestling . . . whatever happens to catch my attention on any particular day, I submerse myself in the action until I actually start believing that I possess—and must share—some special insight into the sport.

Unfortunately, I’ve noted a similar phenomenon in people living through the COVID-19 pandemic. And it’s not so benign as feigning expertise in an arcane sport. Almost overnight, people who have had little exposure to epidemiology or virology—much less a formal background in these complex scientific disciplines—have what they present as well-formed and thoroughly researched opinions on the realities of this public health emergency.

[E]veryone can work to stem the tide of faulty logic, conspiracy theories, and intentional obfuscation by invoking a phrase that has become all too rare in our information age: “I don’t know.” That may be a hard sentiment to conjure in an era where most answers come literally at the click of a button and when uncertainty can be as terrifying as the microbial threat we face. But now, more than ever, it is crucial that we respect the hard-won experience and knowledge of scientists and public health experts, supporting their efforts and valuing their advice with the trust they deserve. 

Read the original post

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesn’t change the science—the world’s most popular herbicide is safe 
Picture1
The FDA couldn’t find a vaccine safety crisis, so it buried its own research
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-11_42_59-AM-2
Viewpoint: NAD is the wellness grifters latest evidence-lite longevity fad. At least the mice are impressed.
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-16-2026-02_56_53-PM
Financial incentives, over diagnosis, and weak oversight: Autism claims are driving up Medicare costs
global warming
‘Implausible’: Top climate scientists reject worst-case scenario—soaring temperatures and fast-rising sea levels
Screenshot-2026-05-21-at-12.15.17-PM
UK gene-editing milestone: Livestock barley that increases ruminant value and reduces methane emissions is first-approved CRISPR crop
Screenshot-2026-05-21-at-3.15.53-PM
Chiropractors may no longer be modern-day snake oil salesmen, but the benefits of their therapy are limited–at best

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.