The public discourse around the COVID-19 pandemic has been strikingly quantitative. Worldwide, the mainstream media has regularly informed the public of confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths, including projections of worst-case scenarios drawn from esoteric epidemiological models. The prominence and visibility of data, regardless of its completeness or quality, underscored the threat of COVID-19 to policy makers and lay individuals alike. It also prompted governments to swiftly lock down their societies, despite the socioeconomic disruptions and human suffering associated with such lockdowns. The widespread media coverage of COVID-19 data and swift response from governments highlight the potency of
The dire absence of similar real-time data on other important population health indicators is striking. Consider deaths among
To put these statistics in the current context of COVID-19 fatalities, 103 684 children (5 391 563 deaths/52 weeks) died every week in 2018. This figure is significantly greater than the COVID-19 deaths during the deadliest week yet of the pandemic, when 52 531 people died (
: Distribution of global child deaths/per week (2018) and COVID-19 deaths for the worst week (April 13-19, 2020) across World Bank income classification. Data sources: [
If public action were dictated by the sheer magnitude of deaths, then the child survival agenda should have overwhelmingly pre-occupied policy thinking and action. Over 60 million children are estimated to have died just in the past decade, and some 46 million more are projected to die, in the coming decade [
Photo: Photo by Bonnie Kittle on Unsplash, via
The COVID-19 crisis has shown the power of publicly available real-time data to drive the news cycle, inform policy makers, and raise public awareness of public health priorities. Many low- and middle-income countries, such as India, have managed to collect and release data on COVID-19 statistics with consistent frequency. Yet, the latest available data on the number of child deaths in India is at least 2 years old [
In most low- and middle-income countries there is no
In an incredibly short period of time, organizations have swiftly developed systems and networks for reporting COVID-19 statistics. The pandemic has shown us that when the public demand for data are real and urgent, non-governmental institutions voluntarily step in to fill the void. It would indeed be a crisis wasted if we fail to capitalize on these data synergies and to adept them for reporting child deaths on a daily, weekly, or even monthly basis. The COVID-19 experience suggests that this should stimulate mainstream media to constructively inform and push political leadership and governments to show similar urgency and purpose to the agenda of child survival.
While the availability of real-time updates around COVID-19 has helped journalists underscore its public health importance on a daily basis, for most public health issues, when news fatigue sets in, or when other, competing newsworthy issues come up, the media’s attention is likely to be diverted. This is particularly true of “routine” public health issues, which may not be as rare or as urgent as a global pandemic. At the same time, the role of media in this pandemic – catalyzed through public availability of real time data – has been instrumental in also contributing to the discussion on establishing robust epidemiologic data surveillance and transparent sharing of data.
Initial data science efforts in this direction will undoubtedly have its limitations; but, as we have learned from the reporting of public health and statistics departments around the world during this pandemic, data begets better data. A real-time data science initiative to count child deaths will further catalyze efforts to enumerating every child death. Such timely tracking could also help us better understand how policies to mitigate child mortality are performing in real time and increase accountability among policy makers, legislators and practicioners. In time, other critical population and health indicators could be added.
Itt is critical to remember the striking global asymmetry in child deaths. While 1% of the global child deaths are in high income countries [
If COVID-19 had not affected the high-income countries in the manner it did, would the response from scientists, media and policy makers have had the same urgency and sense of purpose? Indeed, as COVID-19 deaths move away from high-income countries, we will see whether the intense focus on COVID-19 will remain. A recent analysis of news coverage found that 41 000 English print news stories and 19 000 headlines included the word “Coronavirus” in the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic. In comparison, during the first month of the 2018 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, there were only 1800 English articles and 700 headlines mentioning the crisis [
Leading dailies have recently paid tributes to COVID-19 victims in the United States drawing attention to the real lives behind the statistics, with headlines such as ‘