“Study does not say COVID vaccines may have fuelled excess deaths”

How do you interpret the headline from Reuters’ fact-checkers?

If you’re like me – after spending a few milliseconds on it – your immediate impression is that the study found no link between COVID vaccination and excess mortality. Many, perhaps most of us – including journalists, researchers, politicians, and bureaucrats – don’t read much beyond the headline itself, as I think Reuters’ professionals are aware of.

So what does the study that Reuters’ fact-checkers are referring to actually show – or perhaps just as importantly – not show? Further down in the text, we find a precise answer in a statement from the editorial board of BMJ Public Health, where it was published: “[The study] looked only at trends in excess mortality over time, not its causes”.

It is a precise statement that, in a few words, tells us that the study only examined excess mortality, not a possible association with COVID vaccination. In other words, it is fundamentally different to (1) not study an association vs. to (2) not find an association that one has studied. The study Reuters is referring to has done the former, but the title may mistakenly lead us to believe that it has done the latter.

The title may therefore lead us to mistakenly believe that the study has found no connection between COVID vaccination and excess mortality, but this is not the case. The reason is that the study has not studied any connection between COVID vaccination and excess mortality at all.

True enough, the title uses the words “does not say”, but within microseconds, they can easily be confused with “does not show” or “does not find”. The title “Study does not say COVID vaccines may have fuelled excess deaths” can also easily be confused with “Study says/shows/finds that COVID vaccines may not have fuelled excess deaths”, which shows that a minimal change in wording masks connotation that is not compatible with the substance of the BMJ article.

My advice to Reuters is therefore to clarify as best as possible in the title what the study is actually about. For example:

“Study concludes that COVID vaccination remains an unanswered cause of excess mortality.”

Or:

“Study does not rule out COVID vaccination as a cause of excess mortality.”

Any other good suggestions?

I am eagerly awaiting a job offer from Reuters as the next fact-checker.

(This is a translation from my Norwegian post.)