As a media analyst, I'm at a complete loss how newspapers can look at the COVID-19 data and then completely ignore it. I don't understand this.

Let me give you an example of my latest frustration:

Here in Denmark, we shut down the country to deal with COVID-19, and this decision was largely presented to the public as one being made by "the authorities". They didn't mention the health authorities specifically, but that was the sense of it.

So keep this in mind.

What happened then was that the shutdown worked. We can very clearly see this when we look at the data.

Here is Sweden (who didn't shut down the same way), Norway (who did), and Denmark (who also shut down).

I mean, this is not rocket science...!

In fact, when we compare countries who have been aiming more for herd immunity (or not having any strategy at all, like the US), we see that they have a very high level of deaths, whereas counties who shut down early didn't

We can also look at other factors. For instance, we can look at consumer spending.

The result of this was that consumer spending fell almost as much in Sweden than in Denmark.

In other words, by not shutting down the country in Sweden, they ended up with the same economic problems than in Denmark ... and far more deaths.

So, as a journalist, I ask you, what conclusion do you come to when you see these graphs? What does this data tell you?

Well, let me show you what the Danish newspapers are writing:

I mean... what the heck?!?!?

This news article tells the public that the shutdown might have done more harm than good (despite the data telling us otherwise), and it makes it sound that there no good evidence that the shutdown was needed (which we can clearly see that there was)

How can any newspaper write stories like this?

Well, this is where we get back to the tweet from before. Remember what I said about the Danish government having made it sound like it was the 'authorities' who have asked for the shutdown?

As it turns out, this isn't true. The health authorities didn't make that recommendation. They initially argued that it would be harmful to the country if they did. It was instead the Danish Prime Minister who made this decision.

In other words, the decision was political.

And it's this what the Danish newspapers are now picking up on. They are trying to hold the Danish Prime Minister to account, and to uncover how this was done.

As a media analyst, I have nothing against that. That is great journalism. However, where we fail is with the framing.

Remember, we are reporting it as if the shutdown itself wasn't necessary.

This style of reporting makes it sound like the shutdown wasn't needed, and that it was instead part of some big coverup. This is what people who read that article will end up thinking.

As journalists, we can't do this. This is not a factful way of reporting this. Yes, we should hold those in power to account, but you are undermining the facts and the data to do so.

And BTW: This is not the first time. Recently, it was discovered that the Danish Health Authorities had made a mistake in their calculations, making the outbreak look much worse than what it was. And again the newspapers used this to make it sound like the shutdown was overblown.

But again, look at the data.

Yes, they made a mistake in their calculations, but it doesn't change the fact that the shutdown was essential to not ending up like Sweden.

How any newspaper can report otherwise completely baffles me. What part of this data don't you understand?

We need to do better. We are not helping the public stay informed, and our actions are undermining our future health. Because, if we ever get another virus (or if COVID-19 comes back), people are now much less likely to self-isolate because if our reporting.

But most of all, as a media analyst, I don't understand why this is happening. How can any newspaper look at this data and then frame your stories as if the data told us the opposite. How does happen?!?!?