COVID literature

 January 22, 2026--the sixth anniversary of the first COVID diagnosis in America.   Our newspaper, the San Jose Mercury-News, failed to note this.  So, too, the New York Times and the Washington Post

And then, when I went to check my sources, they say, "NOPE, it was January 20th" until you read further and it was "actually January 18" if not January 17.   Well, the first positive test was on the 17th, and January 18 was the ID verification by CDC of that case in Washington state, and on January 20 a statement was released to the public.   Most newspapers carried their first COVID story on January 22nd, 

But almost all "anniversary date" stories credit March 11th, the day WHO declared COVID to be a pandemic in its infinitre wisdom.  By that date, 40 US states had 3,121 confirmed cases, and 42 deaths.  The world had 24,924 cases in 14 countries, and 982 deaths in 10 countries on four continents.   

What do the 'databases' say?   Well, the official Johns Hopkins database lists 723 cases and 1 death by January 22.   California had 722 cases, no deaths; Washington State had one case on January 22 but no deaths, and Wisconsin had one death but no cases.  Huh?    Turns out that the CA data was retroactively assessed, and 'added' back to the original files.  This didn't happen for any other US state.  Such jiggering of the data happened in several early outbreaks as people tried to reconstruct who was sick and who died from what, before the world knew about COVID.   

So, six years in, how good are the books?  Which ones should we venerate?  

A new one just came out mid-2025, "In COVID's wake" by Stephen Macedo and Frances E. Lee, two political scientists, with great credentials.   Reviews are laudatory from people who idolize political machinations, but health credentials seem suspect.  One critical reviewer wrote "The examinations of existing epidemiology literature in imcomplete, and the conclusions are wrong. . . .  A pathetic attempt at revisionist history of epidemiology of COVID-19 by political scientists.  It is difficult to list every factoid these writers got wrong."

I covered the slim book by the great UK Statistician David Spiegelhalter (2021) in an earlier post.  One key critic wrote: "Absolutely useless . . . "

Michael Lewis penned the popular Premonition at the end of 2020.   Usually a very solid writer, Lewis was panned by many for this one: "A polemic against the government and especially against the CDC . . . (while I share some antipathy toward those views, I like the thrust of this critic's main charge).  "It is a jumble of stories that do not get to Covid until around page 177.  It reads like a hot mess.  I am sorry I slogged through it."

The Plague Year, by Lawrence Wright, late 2020.   Praised by many for its detailed first-year coverage, some found it quite biased.  One said, "Political garbage, huge public disservice. . . . I kept trying so hard to give this book a chance, but once I saw Trump's name mentioned for about the 100th time, I realized that this author was very unhinged in his dislike of Trump.  The author absolutely deserves the right to criticize the Administration's handling of the crisis, but on my opinion focused on that too much in a pandemic that was global and involved numerous global impacts, not just Trump."

Jonathan Howard just published a similar screed, "Everyone else is lying to you: a damning archive of science denial."

One of the better is "Lessons from the COVID War" by the Covid Crisis Committee.  A collection of 34 authors, these are good primary source material, but no overall story emerges.

A European writer, Richard Chambers, wrote "A State of Emergency" about the first COVID year in Ireland.   Reasonably balanced, but only about one (small) nation.

There is room for more.