John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Copied this from Tidbits, the Mac outfit.

Rely on Quality Informational Resources

As a professional writer and journalist, I think hard about the resources I turn to for information. When it comes to C****-**, I’ve come up with a geographic hierarchy of sources.

Start with the World Health Organization. The name says it all.
Move on to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Again, the name is apt.
Look for state (such as New York State for me) and local (Tompkins County) government information that’s more relevant to your everyday life. Other countries likely have similar regional and local hierarchies.
If you have kids, be sure to check your local school district’s resources. (I’ve been impressed with the advice from our Ithaca City School District—the information has been clear, concise, and helpful.)
Although there have been many well-written and useful articles about C****-**, make sure that anything you’re reading has been updated in the last day or two. Events are moving so fast that articles from a week or two ago may be interesting, but their authors may now have different advice or conclusions. I prefer analysis dashboards and frequently updated pages, most notably the following:

Johns Hopkins C****av***s C****-** Global Cases: This dashboard provides constantly updating numbers of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries, broken down by geographic area. The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security also publishes daily situation reports that provide a useful summary of what’s happening.
Our World in Data C****av***s Disease (C****-**) – Research and Statistics: Our World in Data is a collaboration of the University of Oxford and the Global Change Data Lab, and its page on C****-** offers quality information on numerous aspects of the p******c.
The Internet Book of Critical Care: C****-**: This online book is the work of Josh Farkas, an attending intensivist at the University of Vermont with years of ICU experience. It’s aimed at medical professionals but could provide useful details about how doctors think about C****-**.
I realize this stance falls into the category of spitting into the wind, but I strongly recommend against getting information via connections on Facebook and Twitter, or from random YouTube videos. The links might be fine, but there’s so much misinformation out there that you’ll have to do a lot more vetting of any particular resource than if you go directly to health organization experts. When evaluating anything you read that’s not directly from a health organization, ask yourself three questions:

Who is the publisher? Major outlets like the New York Times, the Atlantic, and the Washington Post generally do quality reporting and have fact-checkers. If you haven’t heard of the site before, does it seem to be focused on health or science?
What are the author’s credentials? There’s a compelling Medium post (where anyone can post) making the rounds that has a ton of graphs and seems to be saying sensible things, but the author is a marketing guy. His analysis might be right, but put your trust in healthcare professionals, scientists in appropriate fields, and other experts.
Are there references to reputable publications? This is the Web—there is no reason not to link to original sources. If anything seems off (“would the New England Journal of Medicine really have suggested c****av***s infections are caused by 5G wireless?”), you can and should follow references to make sure they’re being used appropriately.
So stay safe out there, whether that means washing your hands regularly or cleansing your information diet of dangerous misinformation.