Coronavirus disease 2019: the harms of exaggerated information and non-evidence-based measures

With the emergence of this new infection, many publications have come out without being peer-reviewed, in a very imperfect state and sometimes with erroneous information, wasting research time and favouring conspiracy theories (e.g. similarity with HIV-1 announced at the beginning, which became the most widely read paper on COVID-19). Even leading journals are concerned. Indeed, the description of a "false" asymptomatic case was published in the NEJM (30/01), a "false" account of 2 nurses was published in The Lancet (24/02), etc.. Initial estimates of the proportion of the world's population potentially infected have also been greatly exaggerated (up to 70% of the world's inhabitants). Mortality rates have also been overestimated due to the non-detection of asymptomatic cases (over 3% initially and probably less than 1%), which varied according to the screening strategies implemented in each country. Finally, the majority of measures adopted thereafter these publications are based on studies with a low level of evidence (very few randomized studies), including social distancing measures which have not proven to be effective, unlike simple hygiene measures which seem to be based on the strongest evidence to date to reduce contagion.