There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics

Under the circumstances

A few days ago, I noticed with some disbelief that China had reportedly fewer cases of the coronavirus than France, Germany, Italy and Spain. In the distant past, I could have believed that China’s figures weren’t that distorted, because it was still tens of thousands of cases ahead of the rest of the world, and was slowly rolling back the lockdown measures it had imposed (surely they wouldn't do that if the number of cases was still high, would they?). Today, however, it is hard to believe the figures released by the Chinese government. On the 25^th of March, Mike Pompeo criticised the “intentional disinformation campaign that China has been and continues to be engaged in”.[1]

It seems to me that what’s important is not how many cases each country has, but how many cases they have per million inhabitants, and equally how many tests each country has carried out. Interestingly, out of the 35 countries reporting the most cases of COVID-19, China is the only one who hasn’t stated how many tests it has carried out. [2]

If China is massaging its figures, there is no doubt that Xi Jinping has blood on his hands. Research has shown that, had China acted three weeks earlier, 95% of infections would have been avoided.[3] So let's look at the evidence. Since late December, China has changed its definition of what constitutes a coronavirus infection seven times. In the early days of the outbreak, testing (and, seemingly, reporting) was restricted to severe cases. Although China announced on the 19^th of March that there were no new COVD-19 cases in the country, Voice of America argues that at least one asymptomatic case was reported in Wuhan, but excluded from statistics.[4] The motive behind China's releasing of false figures would be flexing its muscles before the failure of the rest of the West to get on top of this crisis.

All of this massaging of figures is reprehensible of course, not least because it seems to be intentional. But I cannot help but wonder which country actually knows their true figures? If Spain and Italy have mortality rates of 9 and 12% respectively, it’s because they are not testing mild cases… just like China. [5]

If Germany has 1248 cases of the coronavirus per 1 million citizens, and the United Kingdom has 760, it may be because Germany is testing three times as many people as the UK per million of the population. [6] Therefore, more than China providing what I believe to be inaccurate statistics, I reproach the fact that they seem to be doing so intentionally and then acting on figures the government must know are inaccurate.

The Bigger Picture

In all honestly, I have always been sceptical of statistics, and I feel that the current situation is merely demonstrative of the damaging role they have not only in public health and diplomacy, but in democracy. 

Statistics are used excessively to illustrate points, and sometimes even as arguments on their own. The problem is that these seemingly omnipotent numbers are being misused by our decision-makers. Allow me to illustrate my point with this moment from 16 October 2016’s Prime Minister’s Question Time:

JEREMY CORBYN: …Analysis by the King’s Fund suggests that 40% of our mental health trusts had their budgets cut last year, and six trusts have seen their budgets cut for three years in a row. Is the Prime Minister really confident that we are delivering parity of esteem for mental health?

THERESA MAY: …It is right that we are introducing parity of esteem for mental health in our national health service. We have waited too long for this, and it is important that it is being done. We are actually investing more in mental health services—an estimated record £11.7 billion.

This is a mere extract from a PMQT consisting of a series of statistics. How is it that Jeremy Corbyn was able to attack the then Prime Minister with a figure, and on the same issue, she managed to find one which seemingly proved him wrong? There are a few answers to this question:

a)            One or both of them has made up the statistic.

b)            They are both using statistics which were massaged in such a way that they can be presented to their advantage.

c)            The statistics were carefully selected, and actually don’t represent popular opinion or fact.

d)            Neither of the statistics actually mean anything in real terms.

Whichever of these suggestions is true, the result is that viewers of this debate were misled, and nothing was achieved. When used in this way, statistics can be used to mask greater truths. The numbers may be accurate, but is their real meaning really what is conveyed?

Moreover, statistics, when used in isolation, can sound completely different to when they are given some context. For example, I could use the fact that footballer N’Golo Kanté registered 5.2 successful tackles per 90 minutes in 2015, a figure which dropped to 3.1 in 2016, as potential evidence to show a regression in his ability. However, this is untrue: his numbers fell because his position had changed.

In conclusion…

That being said, the coronavirus has shown us how reliant we are on statistics to know how to respond to a crisis. If frightening figures weren’t staring us in the face, 20% of the world’s population wouldn’t be on lockdown. Statistics can have a place in democracy, if legitimate figures are used to fairly provide evidence for a clear explanation. This might actually make them credible, and reduce the chance of figures being used lazily to bolster weak arguments, or disguise a darker truth which could cost lives.

Whatever the case, it is clear that politicians and other influencers must be careful when wielding the persuasive power of numbers, or they might get the reputation of being liars, or worse, cold-blooded killers.

---

[1] Campbell, C. and Gunia, A., 2020. Can We Believe Any Of China’S Coronavirus Numbers?. [online] Time. Available at: <https://time.com/5813628/china-coronavirus-statistics-wuhan/> [Accessed 7 April 2020].
[2] Worldometers.info. 2020. Coronavirus Update (Live): 1,386,807 Cases And 79,065 Deaths From COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer. [online] Available at: <https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/> [Accessed 7 April 2020].
[3]Campbell, C. and Gunia, A., 2020. Can We Believe Any Of China’S Coronavirus Numbers?. [online] Time. Available at: <https://time.com/5813628/china-coronavirus-statistics-wuhan/> [Accessed 7 April 2020].

[4] Xie, J., 2020. In China, Officials Exclude Asymptomatic COVID-19 Carriers From Data. [online] Voice of America. Available at: <https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/china-officials-exclude-asymptomatic-covid-19-carriers-data> [Accessed 7 April 2020].

[5]  Pietromarchi, V., 2020. Why Is Italy's Coronavirus Fatality Rate So High?. [online] Aljazeera.com. Available at: <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/italy-coronavirus-fatality-rate-high-200323114405536.html> [Accessed 7 April 2020].

[6] Worldometers.info. 2020. Coronavirus Update (Live): 1,386,807 Cases And 79,065 Deaths From COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer. [online] Available at: <https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/> [Accessed 7 April 2020].

Pietromarchi, V., 2020. Why Is Italy's Coronavirus Fatality Rate So High?. [online] Aljazeera.com. Available at: <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/italy-coronavirus-fatality-rate-high-200323114405536.html> [Accessed 7 April 2020].