Lily Kuo, Beijing bureau chief

I have overseen our coverage of the coronavirus outbreak in China, from when there were just a few cases of “unknown pneumonia” in Wuhan in December to the lockdown of Wuhan and other cities in late January, and most recently as Beijing has begun to declare victory over the virus, which has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 people and infected more than 80,000here.

We have focused on big-picture questions of how this crisis has dented the Chinese government’s image in the eyes of its people as well as its impact on an individual level, the human cost of the outbreak as seen through the many families who lost loved ones. We also reported on what it felt like to be in this surreal state of limbo as the country ground to a halt.

I have also tried to convey through our coverage the resilience, thoughtfulness and creativity of Chinese citizens. This ranges from doctors risking their careers to speak up about cover ups in the initial stages of the outbreak to internet users outwitting censors to preserve removed information, and citizen journalists who have gone missing after trying to report from on the ground in Wuhan.

It has been one of the most complicated, difficult and important stories I have covered. At times I worried that the voices of the people most affected were being drowned out by the news. Other times I worry about the risks to those people when we tell their stories. We are constantly weighing how to show the human side of this crisis without endangering people.

Even as the outbreak appears to be levelling off, the toll this has taken on the country is staggering. It may still be a long time before we can fully appreciate the impact this has had on China.



Sarah Boseley, health editor

Fear of the coronavirus is almost as great a threat as Covid-19 itself, the disease it causes. The World Health Organization’s director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has talked of combating the “infodemic” alongside the epidemic. The public panic is such that social media is alight with speculation, while newspaper websites run stories with sensational headlines because they attract unprecedented traffic.

A fundamental part of my job over the last couple of months has been to sift the emerging information to discard rumour, mistakes, gossip and error. As well as writing my own stories, I am quite often asked to cast an eye over others, to make sure we are not just accurate, but calm and non-sensational. I have made three video explainers and written others that have taken off in an unprecedented manner, because we try to be factual and non-scary.

It’s not easy, because there is contradictory information even from the experts. Tedros recently talked of a death rate of 3.4%. Britain’s chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, some days later, gave evidence to MPs that it was 1% and, in his opinion, will probably prove to be lower. Both are probably correct. Tedros was counting only the officially recorded cases of those who became sick from Chinese hospitals. Whitty took into account the far larger numbers of people we know exist but can only estimate, because they have only mild illness and don’t seek treatment.

I listen to experts like these and other scientists from leading institutes such as the Wellcome Trust and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It’s also fantastically helpful that the Chinese scientists and others elsewhere are publishing papers online with immediate and public access. There is unprecedented transparency in this epidemic – although it does mean the conclusions are tentative, so we need to be careful.

President Xi of China speaking by videolink to a hospital in Wuhan Photograph: Xie Huanchi/Xinhua/AFP via Getty Images

Ian Sample, science editor

There’s a Journalism School rule that’s driven into the brains of all who go down that path: check, check and check again. It’s important whatever the story, whatever the subject, but never more so than in an unfolding public health crisis, and coronavirus is certainly that.

The higher stakes do change how you work. You over-check – both what you write and how it is edited down the line – because the consequences of screwing up are potentially far more serious. If you get the mass of an electron wrong, readers will swiftly let you know, and some may suggest you leave your post, but the sky won’t fall in. Misinterpret a scientific paper about how coronavirus spreads and you have more to worry about than angry emails and a battering on Twitter. What is that death rate figure that scientist said? Is it the number of people who have died among the reported cases? Or is it the infection-fatality rate, the chances that an infected person will die? The difference matters.

Interviews are less breezy these days, more laborious. You are constantly checking whether a simple phrase has a technical definition you’re unaware of, or whether you have the right source and context for a number recalled over the phone. We always need good scientists to talk to us; this job is impossible without their expertise and opinions. But it is doubly important in covering the coronavirus outbreak, because it is the scientists and medical specialists who can best chart a way through this. Even if they don’t always agree.



Lorenzo Tondo, Italy correspondent

At 9:46pm on 9 March, 2020, my life as a reporter, husband, father, brother and son radically changed. Just as Italy’s prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, announced the entire country would be placed under lockdown in an attempt to stop the coronavirus, for the first time in my career I wasn’t simply covering a crisis, I was living it alongside my family.

Readers have been particularly great in flagging up stories, trends and data that those anchoring the blog may not have been aware of

As a reporter, while my hands pecked at the keyboard, I felt the huge responsibility to inform readers in search of balanced news. On one hand I sensed the necessity to express the crude realities of the outbreak, of the thousands infected and hundreds dead; on the other, the need to explain, factually, that it was possible to stop the virus. It was a thin line between the need to inform and the obligation not to cause alarm.

But the biggest responsibility, the most challenging task, was the emergency I found myself in as a father. It wasn’t easy to explain the coronavirus outbreak to my six-year-old son, Leoluca, who won’t be able to attend school or leave the house except in extreme cases. Once again I found myself having to explain the seriousness of the situation while remaining level-headed. I reminded my son of his idol, Spider-Man, and what his Uncle Ben said to him: “With great power comes great responsibility.” “Yeah, dad. I know,” he answered. “I don’t have to jump around skyscrapers. All I have to do is stay home and wash my hands well.” God bless him. It was easier than I thought.

Angela Giuffrida, Rome correspondent

It seems as if a lifetime has passed since that Saturday morning in January, when I was listening to an Irish resident in Wuhan speaking to LBC as news of the coronavirus outbreak in China emerged. He was describing life under quarantine, and how you only left your home to buy essentials “such as toilet roll”. The situation seemed frightening, but very remote.

As events unfolded, I followed the coverage of my colleague, Lily Kuo, in Beijing, all the while wondering how challenging it must have been for her to report the story in China while trying to keep healthy. But again, I never anticipated being in her shoes. Within a few short weeks, I have gone from writing about Italy’s coronavirus outbreak, which was initially confined to 11 northern towns, to living it.

Reporting on this story has been among the most challenging of my career, not least because there are still so many unknowns about coronavirus. There is a huge sense of responsibility to tell the story correctly, but with not even the experts agreeing with each other, it has been a challenge to explain at times.

We are fortunate that Italy has been transparent with data and swift in its actions. The government took coronavirus seriously from the beginning. Every day, the chief of the civil protection authority gives journalists a regional breakdown of new cases, deaths, those recovered and hospitalised. I also have a couple of trusted scientists to call for verifications as well as a team of colleagues at Rome’s foreign press association, who have been invaluable in sharing their knowledge and experiences.



Ben Quinn, reporter

This has been one of the fastest-moving stories for as long as I can remember as a live blogger, demanding an unusual blend of international, political and science reporting as well as crowdsourcing and data analysis.

In a story that’s truly global, the Guardian’s international network also really feels like it has come into its own, with our Australian office handing over to London and copy constantly coming in from reporters everywhere.

But the very nature of the crisis has presented particular challenges too, such as in finding the right balance between covering the global picture and then knowing when and how much to drill down into localised and personal stories, while keeping them relevant to readers in a different part of the world.

Given that our blog has really been global-facing by default, we’ve also tried to take care, for example, to frame and explain specific British developments in a way that are coherent to readers elsewhere while also ensuring that readers in the UK get the depth of detail they expect.

Readers themselves have been particularly great in flagging up stories, trends and data that those anchoring the blog may not otherwise have been aware of, or providing eyewitness accounts.

Verification is obviously essential, and we’re grateful to those who’ve helped make this as easy as possible. That has involved, for example, something as simple as providing photos of boarding passes to help indicate that someone really is at an airport in Milan and can speak from experience about the impact of the Italian lockdown.

Above all, as people find themselves with an unprecedented choice of information sources, we’re still trying to make sure that we remain a calm and trustworthy source for the facts they need.



