When it comes to outbreaks, media reporting is a critical resource—but its trade-offs cannot be ignored
In 2025, country after country reported a significant rise in influenza infections, often a full month earlier than the typical start to the flu season. In the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan, cases grew rapidly, and severe infections and hospitalizations were beginning to strain healthcare systems. In December, the media dubbed it a “superflu,” a term that has since dominated headlines and fueled public concern of a catastrophic flu season.
For BlueDot’s infectious disease surveillance team, the “superflu” moniker isn’t supported by the data. The team tracks influenza-like illnesses globally, year-round, using a diversity of sources in complement to media reporting. The ability to track media reporting provides an undeniable advantage, as BlueDot’s team has access to rapid, local reporting at global scale. But the “superflu” is an illustration of the complexity that comes with media reporting. Media signals often travel faster, and more loudly, than the science to support them. This can create added challenge in assessing the true risk of a disease, not to mention an additional dynamic of public perception that can complicate response efforts.
BlueDot’s head of surveillance Dr. Mariana Torres Portillo sat down to discuss the “superflu” phenomenon, and how robust surveillance systems can separate signal from noise.
The term “superflu” seems to have made its way into just about every news report about this year’s flu season. For weeks the headlines claimed it was, but more recently some say it’s not. So, which is it?
I would say “no,” but it’s a hard question to answer, because there’s no real definition of a “superflu.” The available evidence shows that this season has been dominated by a variant of influenza A H3N2, a known strain that hasn’t been the dominant influenza strain in several years. There are mutations in this strain that made it particularly good at evading existing immunity.
What likely happened is that natural immunity against H3N2 had waned over time, and the early epidemic waves in several countries meant that regularly scheduled vaccine programs were lagging, leaving populations with more limited defense systems before infection struck. We saw large outbreaks in schools, as an example, but the overall peak activity has not surpassed last year in many locations. It raised alarm bells because of its mutations and rapid spread. With that came many questions about whether it was more severe than other strains, and to what degree available vaccines would be effective against it. That’s how the term “superflu” emerged in the media, but it’s not founded in the available data or research.
What does the term “superflu” actually mean? Is it a scientific term?
Nope! But I can understand why the term arose. We monitor ILIs year-round, so we’re more accustomed to the uncertainty that’s inherent to infectious disease surveillance. It’s our business not to jump to conclusions. But it’s common for reporting around flu season to use more alarmist language. Often, the headlines say we are experiencing the “worst season yet.” Because this season started so early in some places, comparisons to the same week last year made things appear substantially worse, and the media ran with that.
When would we know if we are experiencing a “super flu” or dealing with the “worst flu season”?
We don’t know the answer to this with certainty when we are in the thick of ILI season. Terminology like the “superflu” suggests clear, obvious evidence: we don’t often see that in the middle of the season, and absolutely didn’t this season.
When the data aren’t clear, we work to stay ahead of the curve. The key is to assess several data points and sources, including peak activity, the number of severe cases requiring medical care, and cumulative data as the season progresses. We look at CDC data, media reporting, wastewater data, and other sources throughout the season.
Because the timing of flu epidemics can shift year-to-year, it is very difficult to assess whether we are seeing the early stages of a severe season, or just an early start to a somewhat more normal season. Early starts can have major consequences, but many people will look at a year-to-year comparison and assume some kind of catastrophic future.
We saw big regional differences, too. We can’t assume that a trend in one place is the trend everywhere. Frankly, this season showed significant variability in timing, size and geography. Often, definitive answers only come after the season, so assessing risk in real-time requires hard work and a degree of humility.
We’re accustomed to the fact that the media’s incentives are different than ours. Our job is to assess risk: that means covering events that don’t get widespread coverage, maintaining our focus on an event after the coverage has waned, or managing situations where risk has been overstated. Especially when there is novelty or new threats, media coverage can significantly exceed the true threat to the public. It’s not that different from our COVID experience of constantly hearing about “supervariants.” The media can create real urgency over uncertain data. Over time, this can desensitize audiences or distort risk perception.
There’s a lot of noise about this year’s flu and ILI activity.
Let’s cut through it.
Curious to learn more about what’s really happening with ILIs this season? Join BlueDot on January 29 for Tracking Infectious Threats: Key Outbreaks of 2025 and Risks of 2026, a webinar where our experts break down the current ILI season in the Northern Hemisphere, highlight key shifts from the past year, and share what they’re watching for in the months ahead.
Save your spot here and stay ahead of the curve with evidence-based, actionable insights you can trust. Can’t make it the date? Register anyway to receive the recording.
When you see a novel threat being reported in the media, what questions are you asking to assess the true risk?
The complete list of questions would extend this interview by about two days! But here are three questions we ask every time.
First, “what’s missing from the facts we have?” Initial reports are sometimes missing critical pieces of information. In the summer of 2022, we observed an “unknown illness” event in Argentina that had some concerning elements, but the diagnostic information wasn’t sufficient to really sound the alarm. Throughout our reporting, we were clear with our clients: the risk profile is concerning, but it’s early. It turned out to be Legionella, which can be serious, but not the novel threat it appeared to be. Over the years we’ve learned to recognize which locations regularly report unknown illnesses that fit this profile — the cause is usually resource constraints — and to anticipate and identify likely false positives. We keep a close eye on them, but we exercise judgement before reporting on them.
Second, “how might this report be wrong?” We are often more skeptical of media reports than even our most discerning clients. Last summer, reports from Cambodia suggested human-to-human transmission of H5N1. If that were true, it would be a likely driver of global disruption. It’s something we are constantly on the lookout for. In this case, the reports of the transmission pathway were due to a translation error, not the event itself. We uncovered this very early, but watched the media circulate the error for weeks after we had informed our clients of the truth.
Third, “What would drive its spread?” What, if anything, would create a major disruption, whether for nearby communities, countries or the world at large? It’s actually a series of multifaceted questions that we run through. At the end of the day, we know there can be false signals, but we obviously have also seen these events turn into major disruptions.
Wasn’t it through media reports that BlueDot caught early signals of COVID-19?
That’s correct. Our digital early warning system detected signals of a pneumonia-like outbreak in Wuhan through a Chinese trade publication, which is a pretty obscure source to be honest.
I remember seeing it for the first time. I had only been at BlueDot a short time. The publication said that over the past few days people were presenting severe pneumonia of unknown origin—a relatively small number of cases. But we were not seeing information on what tests were being performed. As a clinician, I found this highly unusual, because you know you can test for Streptococcus or influenza and get results right away. When I connected that clue with the proximity to a wet market, I knew this was a major priority for our team to investigate.
So, we followed through with further research, because we still need our team of experts to identify the significance of the signals. But the media reporting is what allowed us to sound the alarm even before the World Health Organization and the US CDC did.
The ILI season is a whirlwind — but it doesn’t have to be. Sign up here for BlueDot’s biweekly ILI reports to gain valuable insight into the latest flu trends and what the data mean to inform your prevention strategies.
With that in mind, have you seen any major changes in the way the media discusses infectious disease?
Before COVID-19, people weren’t really conscious that serious, truly global pandemics were even possible. It was very difficult for non-experts, whether in the media or the public at large, to imagine that this could affect nearly every person in the world.
Now, we’re almost in a state of hyperawareness. We are seeing many false positives and are in a position where our own clients are being asked to answer questions about events that never would have entered the public eye before 2020. And this is just in reference to real, credible medical reports. We are also seeing this hyperawareness drive misinformation and conspiracy theories.
This awareness isn’t necessarily misplaced. There are many drivers that are increasing the likelihood of another major pandemic. With that in mind, we would rather have too much information than too little. But, you need to have the skill and clarity to sort through the false alarms.
So the fact that the media, and the public, are now actively looking for the next global emergency, is a good thing in your view?
Absolutely. It puts pressure on us to do our job well. While it’s true we’re focused on “early warning,” we are also the antidote to the issue of “crying wolf.” I had a very validating call with a client just last week. A relatively small local health unit, basically a suburb of a larger city, was describing to us how they now can effectively track and deliver important information about events all over the world—without being buried in noise. It’s a level of visibility that would be impossible before. Honestly, it’s hearing things like that that reminds me why I love doing this so much.
3 Top Takeaways
- This flu season was far more complex than the word “superflu” would imply. The dominant strain this season was the re-emergence of influenza A H3N2: a known influenza strain that hadn’t been dominant for some time. Meanwhile, multiple locations had early and rapid starts to otherwise normal seasons. Some areas are experiencing very severe seasons. Especially for regional or multinational organizations, the defining trait of the season was its variability and complexity.
- Novel language like the superflu can complicate objective risk assessments. Attention-grabbing words can obscure the true facts, drum up unfounded public concern and can jeopardize trust for years to come. Managing risks when the facts are far more mixed than the dominant narrative is a challenge that is only getting more demanding in our current media environment.
- For early reporting, context is key: False alarms are common in today’s media environment. The concern around the next major outbreak is well-founded: BlueDot’s surveillance team views false alarms as a good problem to have. But such an environment underscores the need to have sustained, expert analysis that uses every clue available to clearly assess risks.
On our radar
- Mpox Clade Ib in Europe and the Americas: From Brazil to Germany and Spain, mpox Clade Ib has been detected outside of usual endemic zones, with a growing number of cases lacking clear travel links to endemic regions. Germany confirmed its first-ever case of locally acquired mpox Clade Ib on January 10. Two days later, Brazil confirmed its second case of mpox Clade I in a traveler from Portugal — where no cases have been reported. The emergence of Clade Ib in these non-endemic areas, a trend initially detected early last year, suggests a degree of community transmission and highlights the importance of enhanced surveillance and targeted vaccination programs.
- Nipah in India and Bangladesh: As of January 18, 5 confirmed and suspected cases of Nipah virus have been reported in West Bengal, India. The state’s first confirmed outbreak since 2007, this zoonotic disease has been linked to healthcare-associated transmission. The affected area lies near the Bangladesh–India border, where recurrent Nipah virus spillover has been documented. These cases follow nearby Bangladesh’s 4 cases last year, all of which were fatal. Nipah virus often causes severe complications, such as encephalitis, and has a high fatality rate (40-75%), leading health authorities to increase surveillance and containment protocols. BlueDot is closely monitoring the situation for further transmission and cross-border spread.
- Measles in the Americas: On January 12, Guatemala confirmed a measles outbreak in Santiago Atitlán following a mass gathering event last month, which appears to have triggered rapid transmission. Case counts have since risen sharply, with nearly 40 cases now reported, marking Guatemala’s first measles outbreak in almost 30 years after decades of elimination. Cross-border spread has been detected, including imported cases in El Salvador and Chile linked to air travel. Neighbouring countries are also reporting rapid escalation, notably Honduras, where cases increased from four imported infections to 42 in less than a week. These developments, alongside ongoing measles activity in Mexico and the United States, highlight the virus’s extreme transmissibility and the continued importance of vaccination and mass-gathering risk assessment.
The ILI season is a whirlwind — but it doesn’t have to be. Sign up here for BlueDot’s biweekly ILI reports to gain valuable insight into the latest flu trends and what the data mean to inform your prevention strategies.
To get monthly data-driven expert analyses on infectious diseases, sign up here to receive every edition of Outbreak Insider.
Lastly, don’t forget to sign up for our webinar. Join BlueDot on January 29 for Tracking Infectious Threats: Key Outbreaks of 2025 and Risks of 2026, a webinar where our experts break down the current ILI season in the Northern Hemisphere, highlight key shifts from the past year, and share what they’re watching for in the months ahead.
Save your spot here. Can’t make it the date? Register anyway to receive the recording.
