tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/vaccine-misinformation-76246/articlesVaccine misinformation – The Conversation2023-12-13T13:35:34Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2170592023-12-13T13:35:34Z2023-12-13T13:35:34ZHealth misinformation is rampant on social media – here’s what it does, why it spreads and what people can do about it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564379/original/file-20231207-23-75o0yn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=62%2C26%2C5904%2C4070&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Media literacy is more essential than ever. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/myth-fake-news-and-facts-vector-illustration-royalty-free-illustration/1358189151?phrase=social+media+misinformation&searchscope=image%2Cfilm&adppopup=true">Wanlee Prachyapanaprai/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The global anti-vaccine movement and vaccine hesitancy that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa433">accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic</a> show no signs of abating.</p>
<p>According to a survey of U.S. adults, Americans in October 2023 were <a href="https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/vaccine-confidence-falls-as-belief-in-health-misinformation-grows/">less likely to view approved vaccines as safe</a> than they were in April 2021. As vaccine confidence falls, health misinformation continues to spread like wildfire on social media and in real life.</p>
<p>I am a <a href="https://www.bu.edu/sph/profile/monica-wang/">public health</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5g6xyEMAAAAJ&hl=en">expert</a> in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaaa088">health misinformation</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibac096">science communication</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826180148">health behavior change</a>.</p>
<p>In my view, we cannot underestimate the <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305905">dangers of health misinformation</a> and the need to understand why it spreads and what we can do about it. Health misinformation is defined as any health-related claim that is false based on current scientific consensus. </p>
<h2>False claims about vaccines</h2>
<p>Vaccines are the No. 1 topic of misleading health claims. Some <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffmicb.2020.00372">common myths about vaccines</a> include: </p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Their supposed link with human diagnoses of autism</strong>. Multiple studies have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.085">discredited this claim</a>, and it has been firmly refuted by the <a href="https://www.who.int/groups/global-advisory-committee-on-vaccine-safety/topics/mmr-vaccines-and-autism">World Health Organization</a>, the <a href="https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/vaccines-do-not-cause-autism">National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine</a>, the <a href="https://publications.aap.org/patiented/article-abstract/doi/10.1542/peo_document599/82016/Vaccines-Autism-Toolkit">American Academy of Pediatrics</a> and the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a>.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Concerns with the COVID-19 vaccine leading to infertility</strong>. This connection has been debunked through a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.vaccine.2022.09.019">systematic review and meta-analysis</a>, one of the most robust forms of synthesizing scientific evidence.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Safety concerns about vaccine ingredients, such as thimerosal, aluminum and formaldehyde</strong>. Extensive studies have shown these ingredients are safe when used in <a href="https://www.aaaai.org/tools-for-the-public/conditions-library/allergies/vaccine-myth-fact">the minimal amounts contained in vaccines</a>.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Vaccines as medically unnecessary to protect from disease</strong>. The development and dissemination of vaccines for life-threatening diseases such as smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and the flu has saved <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1704507114">millions of lives</a>. It also played a critical role in historic <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1413559111">increases in average life expectancy</a> – from 47 years in 1900 in the U.S. to 76 years in 2023. </p></li>
</ul>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/CX9WyO4s4kA","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<h2>The costs of health misinformation</h2>
<p>Beliefs in such myths have come at the highest cost. </p>
<p>An estimated 319,000 COVID-19 deaths that occurred between January 2021 and April 2022 in the U.S. <a href="https://globalepidemics.org/vaccinations/">could have been prevented</a> if those individuals had been vaccinated, according to a data dashboard from the Brown University School of Public Health. Misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines alone have cost the U.S. economy an estimated <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibac096">US$50 million to $300 million per day</a> in direct costs from hospitalizations, long-term illness, lives lost and economic losses from missed work.</p>
<p>Though vaccine myths and misunderstandings tend to dominate conversations about health, there is an <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196%2F17187">abundance of misinformation</a> on social media surrounding diets and eating disorders, smoking or substance use, chronic diseases and medical treatments. </p>
<p>My team’s research and that of others show that social <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/43961">media platforms have become go-to sources</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196%2F17917">for health information</a>, especially among adolescents and young adults.
However, many people are not equipped to maneuver the maze of health misinformation.</p>
<p>For example, an analysis of Instagram and TikTok posts from 2022 to 2023 by The Washington Post and the nonprofit news site The Examination found that the food, beverage and dietary supplement industries paid dozens of registered dietitian influencers to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/09/13/dietitian-instagram-tiktok-paid-food-industry/">post content promoting diet soda, sugar and supplements</a>, reaching millions of viewers. The dietitians’ relationships with the food industry were not always made clear to viewers. </p>
<p>Studies show that health misinformation spread on social media results in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.vaccine.2022.09.046">fewer people getting vaccinated</a> and can also increase the risk of other health dangers such as <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-weight-loss-trend-on-tiktok-might-encourage-eating-disorders/">disordered eating</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.18297/tce/vol1/iss1/16">unsafe sex practices and sexually transmitted infections</a>. Health misinformation has even bled over into animal health, with a 2023 study finding that 53% of dog owners surveyed in a nationally representative sample report being <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.08.059">skeptical of pet vaccines</a>.</p>
<h2>Health misinformation is on the rise</h2>
<p>One major reason behind the spread of health misinformation is <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/11/14/americans-trust-in-scientists-positive-views-of-science-continue-to-decline/">declining trust in science</a> and <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/public-trust-in-government-1958-2023/">government</a>. Rising political polarization, coupled with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080%2F08964289.2019.1619511">historical medical mistrust</a> among communities that have experienced and continue to experience <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194634/">unequal health care treatment</a>, exacerbates preexisting divides.</p>
<p>The lack of trust is both fueled and reinforced by the way misinformation can spread today. Social media platforms allow people to <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2020.305905">form information silos</a> with ease; you can curate your networks and your feed by unfollowing or muting contradictory views from your own and liking and sharing content that aligns with your existing beliefs and value systems. </p>
<p>By tailoring content based on past interactions, social media algorithms can unintentionally <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.06.008">limit your exposure</a> to diverse perspectives and generate a fragmented and incomplete understanding of information. Even more concerning, a study of misinformation spread on Twitter analyzing data from 2006 to 2017 found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559">falsehoods were 70% more likely to be shared</a> than the truth and spread “further, faster, deeper and more broadly than the truth” across all categories of information.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GIaRw5R6Da4?wmode=transparent&start=2" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The average kindergarten student sees about 70 media messages every day. By the time they’re in high school, teens spend more than a third of their day using media.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How to combat misinformation</h2>
<p>The lack of robust and standardized regulation of misinformation content on social media places the difficult task of discerning what is true or false information on individual users. We scientists and research entities can also do better in communicating our science and rebuilding trust, as my colleague and I have <a href="https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/rebuilding-public-trust-in-science/">previously written</a>. I also provide <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.5282">peer-reviewed recommendations</a> for the important roles that parents/caregivers, policymakers and social media companies can play. </p>
<p>Below are some steps that consumers can take to identify and prevent health misinformation spread: </p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Check the source.</strong> Determine the credibility of the health information by checking if the source is a reputable organization or agency such as the <a href="https://www.who.int">World Health Organization</a>, the <a href="https://www.nih.gov">National Institutes of Health</a> or the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a>. Other credible sources include an established medical or scientific institution or a peer-reviewed study in an academic journal. Be cautious of information that comes from unknown or biased sources.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Examine author credentials.</strong> Look for qualifications, expertise and relevant professional affiliations for the author or authors presenting the information. Be wary if author information is missing or difficult to verify.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Pay attention to the date.</strong> Scientific knowledge by design is meant to evolve as new evidence emerges. Outdated information may not be the most accurate. Look for recent data and updates that contextualize findings within the broader field. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Cross-reference to determine scientific consensus.</strong> Cross-reference information across multiple reliable sources. Strong consensus across experts and multiple scientific studies supports the validity of health information. If a health claim on social media contradicts widely accepted scientific consensus and stems from unknown or unreputable sources, it is likely unreliable. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Question sensational claims.</strong> Misleading health information often uses sensational language designed to provoke strong emotions to grab attention. Phrases like “miracle cure,” “secret remedy” or “guaranteed results” may signal exaggeration. Be alert for potential conflicts of interest and sponsored content.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Weigh scientific evidence over individual anecdotes.</strong> Prioritize information grounded in scientific studies that have undergone rigorous research methods, such as randomized controlled trials, peer review and validation. When done well with representative samples, the scientific process provides a reliable foundation for health recommendations compared to individual anecdotes. Though personal stories can be compelling, they should not be the sole basis for health decisions. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Talk with a health care professional.</strong> If health information is confusing or contradictory, seek guidance from trusted health care providers who can offer personalized advice based on their expertise and individual health needs. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>When in doubt, don’t share.</strong> Sharing health claims without validity or verification contributes to misinformation spread and preventable harm.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>All of us can play a part in responsibly consuming and sharing information so that the spread of the truth outpaces the false.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217059/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Monica Wang receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. </span></em></p>Studies show that health misinformation on social media has led to fewer people getting vaccinated and more lives lost to COVID-19 and other life-threatening diseases.Monica Wang, Associate Professor of Public Health, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2048972023-05-24T12:18:44Z2023-05-24T12:18:44ZChatGPT and other generative AI could foster science denial and misunderstanding – here’s how you can be on alert<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527865/original/file-20230523-27149-c2x3lt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5529%2C3821&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Approach all information with some initial skepticism.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/worried-young-man-sitting-on-a-pouf-working-on-the-royalty-free-image/1470667133">Guillermo Spelucin/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Until very recently, if you wanted to know more about a controversial scientific topic – stem cell research, the safety of nuclear energy, climate change – you probably did a Google search. Presented with multiple sources, you chose what to read, selecting which sites or authorities to trust.</p>
<p>Now you have another option: You can pose your question to ChatGPT or another generative artificial intelligence platform and quickly receive a succinct response in paragraph form.</p>
<p>ChatGPT does not search the internet the way Google does. Instead, it generates responses to queries by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/07/ai-beginners-guide/">predicting likely word combinations</a> from a massive amalgam of available online information.</p>
<p>Although it has the potential for <a href="https://hbr.org/podcast/2023/05/how-generative-ai-changes-productivity">enhancing productivity</a>, generative AI has been shown to have some major faults. It can <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-platforms-like-chatgpt-are-easy-to-use-but-also-potentially-dangerous/">produce misinformation</a>. It can create “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/business/ai-chatbots-hallucination.html">hallucinations</a>” – a benign term for making things up. And it doesn’t always accurately solve reasoning problems. For example, when asked if both a car and a tank can fit through a doorway, it <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/14/technology/openai-new-gpt4.html">failed to consider both width and height</a>. Nevertheless, it is already being used to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/01/17/cnet-ai-articles-journalism-corrections/">produce articles</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/technology/ai-generated-content-discovered-on-news-sites-content-farms-and-product-reviews.html">website content</a> you may have encountered, or <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/21/opinion/chatgpt-journalism.html">as a tool</a> in the writing process. Yet you are unlikely to know if what you’re reading was created by AI.</p>
<p>As the authors of “<a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/science-denial-9780197683330">Science Denial: Why It Happens and What to Do About It</a>,” we are concerned about how generative AI may blur the boundaries between truth and fiction for those seeking authoritative scientific information.</p>
<p>Every media consumer needs to be more vigilant than ever in verifying scientific accuracy in what they read. Here’s how you can stay on your toes in this new information landscape.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="glowing purple points connected by blue lines" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527867/original/file-20230523-27136-sqncv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Based on all the data points it ingests, an AI platform uses predictive algorithms to produce answers to queries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/abstract-technology-3d-background-with-neon-glowing-royalty-free-image/1424551670">Cobalt88/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How generative AI could promote science denial</h2>
<p><strong>Erosion of epistemic trust</strong>. All consumers of science information depend on judgments of scientific and medical experts. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2014.971907">Epistemic trust</a> is the process of trusting knowledge you get from others. It is fundamental to the understanding and use of scientific information. Whether someone is seeking information about a health concern or trying to understand solutions to climate change, they often have limited scientific understanding and little access to firsthand evidence. With a rapidly growing body of information online, people must make frequent decisions about what and whom to trust. With the increased use of generative AI and the potential for manipulation, we believe trust is likely to erode further than <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-trust-in-scientists-other-groups-declines/">it already has</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Misleading or just plain wrong</strong>. If there are errors or biases in the data on which AI platforms are trained, that <a href="https://theconversation.com/ai-information-retrieval-a-search-engine-researcher-explains-the-promise-and-peril-of-letting-chatgpt-and-its-cousins-search-the-web-for-you-200875">can be reflected in the results</a>. In our own searches, when we have asked ChatGPT to regenerate multiple answers to the same question, we have gotten conflicting answers. Asked why, it responded, “Sometimes I make mistakes.” Perhaps the trickiest issue with AI-generated content is knowing when it is wrong.</p>
<p><strong>Disinformation spread intentionally</strong>. AI can be used to generate compelling disinformation as text as well as deepfake images and videos. When we asked ChatGPT to “<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-platforms-like-chatgpt-are-easy-to-use-but-also-potentially-dangerous/">write about vaccines in the style of disinformation</a>,” it produced a nonexistent citation with fake data. Geoffrey Hinton, former head of AI development at Google, quit to be free to sound the alarm, saying, “It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/technology/ai-google-chatbot-engineer-quits-hinton.html">using it for bad things</a>.” The potential to create and spread deliberately incorrect information about science already existed, but it is now dangerously easy. </p>
<p><strong>Fabricated sources</strong>. ChatGPT provides responses with no sources at all, or if asked for sources, may present <a href="https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2023/01/21/chatgpt-cites-economics-papers-that-do-not-exist/">ones it made up</a>. We both asked ChatGPT to generate a list of our own publications. We each identified a few correct sources. More were hallucinations, yet seemingly reputable and mostly plausible, with actual previous co-authors, in similar sounding journals. This inventiveness is a big problem if a list of a scholar’s publications conveys authority to a reader who doesn’t take time to verify them. </p>
<p><strong>Dated knowledge</strong>. ChatGPT doesn’t know what happened in the world after its training concluded. A query on what percentage of the world has had COVID-19 returned an answer prefaced by “as of my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021.” Given how rapidly knowledge advances in some areas, this limitation could mean readers get erroneous outdated information. If you’re seeking recent research on a personal health issue, for instance, beware. </p>
<p><strong>Rapid advancement and poor transparency</strong>. AI systems continue to become <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/technology/ai-google-chatbot-engineer-quits-hinton.html">more powerful and learn faster</a>, and they may learn more science misinformation along the way. Google recently announced <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/technology/google-ai-products.html">25 new embedded uses of AI in its services</a>. At this point, <a href="https://theconversation.com/regulating-ai-3-experts-explain-why-its-difficult-to-do-and-important-to-get-right-198868">insufficient guardrails are in place</a> to assure that generative AI will become a more accurate purveyor of scientific information over time.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="woman looks confused taking notes on paper looking at laptop" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527868/original/file-20230523-4359-szcuz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Be ready to look beyond your ChatGPT request.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/senior-woman-using-laptop-and-making-notes-royalty-free-image/991999284">10'000 Hours/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What can you do?</h2>
<p>If you use ChatGPT or other AI platforms, recognize that they might not be completely accurate. The burden falls to the user to discern accuracy.</p>
<p><strong>Increase your vigilance</strong>. <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/12/ai-will-start-fact-checking-we-may-not-like-the-results/">AI fact-checking apps may be available soon</a>, but for now, users must serve as their own fact-checkers. <a href="https://www.nsta.org/science-teacher/science-teacher-januaryfebruary-2023/plausible">There are steps we recommend</a>. The first is: Be vigilant. People often reflexively share information found from searches on social media with little or no vetting. Know when to become more deliberately thoughtful and when it’s worth identifying and evaluating sources of information. If you’re trying to decide how to manage a serious illness or to understand the best steps for addressing climate change, take time to vet the sources.</p>
<p><strong>Improve your fact-checking</strong>. A second step is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000740">lateral reading</a>, a process professional fact-checkers use. Open a new window and search for <a href="https://www.nsta.org/science-teacher/science-teacher-mayjune-2023/marginalizing-misinformation">information about the sources</a>, if provided. Is the source credible? Does the author have relevant expertise? And what is the consensus of experts? If no sources are provided or you don’t know if they are valid, use a traditional search engine to find and evaluate experts on the topic. </p>
<p><strong>Evaluate the evidence</strong>. Next, take a look at the evidence and its connection to the claim. Is there evidence that genetically modified foods are safe? Is there evidence that they are not? What is the scientific consensus? Evaluating the claims will take effort beyond a quick query to ChatGPT.</p>
<p><strong>If you begin with AI, don’t stop there</strong>. Exercise caution in using it as the sole authority on any scientific issue. You might see what ChatGPT has to say about genetically modified organisms or vaccine safety, but also follow up with a more diligent search using traditional search engines before you draw conclusions. </p>
<p><strong>Assess plausibility</strong>. Judge whether the claim is plausible. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.001">Is it likely to be true</a>? If AI makes an implausible (and inaccurate) statement like “<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/12/23/fact-check-false-claim-covid-19-vaccines-caused-1-1-million-deaths/10929679002/">1 million deaths were caused by vaccines, not COVID-19</a>,” consider if it even makes sense. Make a tentative judgment and then be open to revising your thinking once you have checked the evidence.</p>
<p><strong>Promote digital literacy in yourself and others</strong>. Everyone needs to up their game. <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-be-a-good-digital-citizen-during-the-election-and-its-aftermath-148974">Improve your own digital literacy</a>, and if you are a parent, teacher, mentor or community leader, promote digital literacy in others. The American Psychological Association provides guidance on <a href="https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/social-media-literacy-teens">fact-checking online information</a> and recommends teens be <a href="https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advisory-adolescent-social-media-use">trained in social media skills</a> to minimize risks to health and well-being. <a href="https://newslit.org/">The News Literacy Project</a> provides helpful tools for improving and supporting digital literacy.</p>
<p>Arm yourself with the skills you need to navigate the new AI information landscape. Even if you don’t use generative AI, it is likely you have already read articles created by it or developed from it. It can take time and effort to find and evaluate reliable information about science online – but it is worth it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204897/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gale Sinatra receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barbara K. Hofer has received funding from the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p>Generative AIs may make up information they serve you, meaning they may potentially spread science misinformation. Here’s how to check the accuracy of what you read in an AI-enhanced media landscape.Gale Sinatra, Professor of Education and Psychology, University of Southern CaliforniaBarbara K. Hofer, Professor of Psychology Emerita, MiddleburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2047742023-05-17T12:40:51Z2023-05-17T12:40:51ZVaccines using mRNA can protect farm animals against diseases traditional ones may not – and there are safeguards to ensure they won’t end up in your food<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525981/original/file-20230512-28-6v7puj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3008%2C2008&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Vaccines help protect farm animals from various diseases.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/veterinarian-and-pigs-royalty-free-image/512631046">dusanpetkovic/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>While effective vaccines for COVID-19 should have heralded the benefits of mRNA vaccines, <a href="https://theconversation.com/misinformation-is-a-common-thread-between-the-covid-19-and-hiv-aids-pandemics-with-deadly-consequences-187968">fear and misinformation</a> about their supposed dangers circulated at the same time. These misconceptions about mRNA vaccines have recently spilled over into worries about whether their use in agricultural animals could expose people to components of the vaccine <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/02/15/fact-check-false-claim-mrna-vaccines-food-supply/11218991002/">within animal products</a> such as meat or milk.</p>
<p>In fact, a number of states are drafting or considering legislation outlawing the use of mRNA vaccines in food animals or, at minimum, requiring their labeling on animal products in grocery stores. <a href="https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/H0154/">Idaho introduced a bill</a> that would make it a misdemeanor to administer any type of mRNA vaccine to any person or mammal, including COVID-19 vaccines. A <a href="https://www.house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB1169&year=2023&code=R">Missouri bill</a> would have required the labeling of animal products derived from animals administered mRNA vaccines but failed to get out of committee. <a href="https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/1R/summary/H.HB2762_020823_LARA.DOCX.htm">Arizona</a> and <a href="https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0099&GA=113">Tennessee</a> have also proposed labeling bills. <a href="https://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/okfr/2023/04/21/mike-deering-corrects-false-accusations-of-cattle-industry-using-mrna-vaccines/">Several other</a> <a href="https://www.texasagriculture.gov/News-Events/Article/7596/Commissioner-Miller-Statement-on-mRNA-Vaccines-in-Livestock">state legislatures</a> are discussing similar measures.</p>
<p>I am a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yTZZQ3QAAAAJ&hl=en">researcher who has been making vaccines</a> for a number of years, and I started studying mRNA vaccines before the pandemic started. My research on using <a href="https://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/1027610-novel-mrna-vaccine-technology-for-prevention-of-bovine-respiratory-syncytial-virus.html">mRNA vaccines for cattle respiratory viruses</a> has been referenced by social media users and anti-vaccine activists who say that using these vaccines in animals will endanger the health of people who eat them.</p>
<p>But these vaccines have been shown to reduce disease on farms, and it’s all but impossible for them to end up in your food.</p>
<h2>Traditional animal vaccine approaches</h2>
<p>In food animals, <a href="https://www.merckvetmanual.com/pharmacology/vaccines-and-immunotherapy/types-of-vaccines-for-animals">several types of vaccines</a> have long been available for farmers to protect their animals from common diseases. These include inactivated vaccines that contain a killed version of a pathogen, live attenuated vaccines that contain a weakened version of a pathogen and subunit vaccines that contain one part of a pathogen. All can elicit good levels of protection from disease symptoms and infection. Producing these vaccines is <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17892154/">often inexpensive</a>.</p>
<p>However, each of these vaccines <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-4939-3389-1_1">has drawbacks</a>. </p>
<p>Inactivated and subunit vaccines often do not produce a strong enough immune response, and pathogens can quickly mutate into variants that <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.697839">limit vaccine effectiveness</a>. The weakened pathogens in live attenuated vaccines have the remote possibility of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fve%2Fvev005">reverting back</a> to their full pathogenic form or mixing with other circulating pathogens and becoming new vaccine-resistant ones. They also must be grown in specific cell cultures to produce them, which can be time-consuming.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mvA9gs5gxNY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Each type of vaccine has pros and cons.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-018-0560-8">several pathogens</a> – such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, foot and mouth disease virus, <a href="https://theconversation.com/bird-flu-is-killing-millions-of-chickens-and-turkeys-across-the-us-180299">H5N1 influenza</a> and African swine fever virus – for which all three traditional approaches have yet to yield an effective vaccine.</p>
<p>Another major drawback for all three of these vaccine types is the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tvjl.2007.11.009">time it takes</a> to test and obtain federal approval to use them. Typically, animal vaccines take <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.vaccine.2020.05.007">three or more years</a> from development to licensure by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Should new viruses make it to farms, playing catch-up using traditional vaccines could take too long to contain an outbreak. </p>
<h2>Advantages of animal mRNA vaccines</h2>
<p>All cells use <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-mrna-the-messenger-molecule-thats-been-in-every-living-cell-for-billions-of-years-is-the-key-ingredient-in-some-covid-19-vaccines-158511">mRNA, which contains the instructions</a> to make the proteins needed to carry out specific functions. The mRNA used in vaccines encode instructions to make a protein from a pathogen of interest that immune cells learn to recognize and attack. This process builds <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-long-does-protective-immunity-against-covid-19-last-after-infection-or-vaccination-two-immunologists-explain-177309">immunological memory</a>, so that when a pathogen carrying that same protein enters the body, the immune system will be ready to mount a quick and strong response against it.</p>
<p>Compared to traditional vaccines, mRNA vaccines have several advantages that make them ideal for protecting people and farm animals from both emerging and persistent diseases.</p>
<p>Unlike killed or subunit vaccines, mRNA vaccines increase the buildup of vaccine proteins in cells over time and train the immune system using conditions that look more like a viral infection. Like live attenuated vaccines, this process fosters the development of <a href="https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/what-makes-an-mrna-vaccine-so-effective-against-severe-covid-19/">strong immune responses</a> that may build better protection. In contrast to live attenuated viruses, mRNA vaccines cannot revert to a pathogenic form or mix with circulating pathogens. Furthermore, once the genetic sequence of a pathogen of interest is known, mRNA vaccines can be <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-designed-coronavirus-vaccine-in-2-days-2020-11/">produced rather quickly</a>.</p>
<p>The mRNA in vaccines can come in either a form that is structurally similar to what is normally found in the body, like those used in COVID-19 vaccines for people, or in a form that is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41434-020-00204-y?">self-amplifying, called saRNA</a>. Because saRNA allows for higher levels of protein synthesis, researchers think that less mRNA would be needed to generate similar levels of immunity. However, a COVID-19 saRNA vaccine for people developed <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/curevac-covid-19-vaccine-records-only-48-efficacy-final-trial-readout-2021-06-30/#">by biopharmaceutical company CureVac</a> elicited less protection than traditional mRNA approaches.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/veterinary-biologics/product-summaries/Vet-Label-Data/d611b51a-9eca-4d56-9556-dcc61fb96d5f">Merck’s Sequivity</a> is currently the only saRNA vaccine licensed for use in animals, and it is available by prescription to protect against swine flu in pigs.</p>
<h2>Persistance of mRNA vaccine components</h2>
<p>All mRNA vaccines are made in the laboratory using methods that were <a href="https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-vaccines">developed decades ago</a>. Only recently has the technology advanced to the point where the body doesn’t immediately reject it by activating the antiviral defenses intrinsic to each of your cells. This rejection would occur before the immune system even had the chance to mount a response.</p>
<p>The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines used in people <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.1c00197">mix in modified nucleotides</a> – the building blocks of RNA – with unmodified nucleotides so the mRNA can hide from the intrinsic antiviral sensors of the cell. These modified nucleotides are what allow the mRNA to persist in the body’s cells <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-covid-vaccines-dont-stay-in-your-body-for-years-169247">for a few days</a> rather than <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(73)90119-8">just a few hours</a> like natural mRNAs.</p>
<p>New methods of delivering the vaccine using <a href="https://theconversation.com/nanoparticles-are-the-future-of-medicine-researchers-are-experimenting-with-new-ways-to-design-tiny-particle-treatments-for-cancer-180009">lipid nanoparticles</a> also ensure the mRNA isn’t degraded before it has a chance to enter cells and start making proteins.</p>
<p>Despite this stability, mRNA vaccines do not last long enough within animals after injection for any component of the vaccine to end up on grocery store shelves. Unlike for human vaccines, animal vaccine manufacturers must determine the <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/vet_biologics/publications/pel_4_9.pdf">withdrawal period</a> in order to obtain USDA approval. This means any component of a vaccine cannot be found in the animal prior to milking or slaughter. Given the short lifespan of some of the agriculture animals and intensive milking schedules, withdrawal periods often need to be very short.</p>
<p>Between the mandatory vaccine withdrawal period, flash pasteurization for milk, degradation on the shelf and the cooking process for food products, there could not be any residual vaccine left for humans to consume. Even if you were to consume residual mRNA molecules, your gastrointestinal tract will <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2021.12.022">rapidly degrade them</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525996/original/file-20230512-24902-28dwi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Dairy cows lined up for milking" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525996/original/file-20230512-24902-28dwi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525996/original/file-20230512-24902-28dwi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525996/original/file-20230512-24902-28dwi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525996/original/file-20230512-24902-28dwi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525996/original/file-20230512-24902-28dwi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525996/original/file-20230512-24902-28dwi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525996/original/file-20230512-24902-28dwi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Withdrawal periods are intended to ensure no component of the vaccine is present in the animal’s body before milking or slaughter.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/dairy-cows-ready-for-milking-royalty-free-image/1267197465">kolderal/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Several mRNA vaccines for use in animals <a href="https://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/1027610-novel-mrna-vaccine-technology-for-prevention-of-bovine-respiratory-syncytial-virus.html">are in</a> <a href="https://www.genengnews.com/topics/drug-discovery/bayer-partners-with-biontech-to-develop-mrna-vaccines-drugs-for-animal-health/">early stages</a> <a href="https://www.porkbusiness.com/news/industry/genvax-technologies-secures-65-million-advance-novel-vaccine-platform">of development</a>. Merck’s USDA-licensed Sequivity does not use the modified nucleotides or lipid nanoparticles that allow those vaccine components to circulate for slightly longer periods in the body, so long-term persistence is unlikely.</p>
<p>Like in people, animal vaccines are <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/vet_biologics/publications/memo_800_202.pdf">tested for their safety and effectiveness</a> in clinical trials. Approval for use from the <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/veterinary-biologics/CT_Vb_licensed_products">USDA Center for Vaccine Biologics</a> requires a modest level of protection against infection or disease symptoms. As with all animal vaccines, future mRNA vaccines will also need to be fully cleared from the animal’s body before they can be used in animals for human consumption.</p>
<h2>mRNA vaccines for more farm animals</h2>
<p>Whether mRNA vaccines will displace other vaccine types for livestock is yet to be determined. The <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/how-much-could-covid-19-vaccines-cost-the-u-s-after-commercialization/">cost of manufacturing these vaccines</a>, their need to <a href="https://www.vox.com/21552934/moderna-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-biontech-coronavirus-cold-chain">kept very cold and warm up before use</a> to avoid degradation, and the efficacy of different types of mRNA vaccines all still need to be addressed before large-scale use can take place. </p>
<p>Traditional vaccines for food animals have <a href="https://pressbooks.umn.edu/vetprevmed/chapter/chapter-4-vaccines-and-vaccinations-production/">protected them against many diseases</a>. Limiting the use of mRNA vaccines right now would mean losing a new way to protect animals from pesky pathogens that current vaccines can’t fend off.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204774/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Verhoeven received funding from Merck and USDA. Those funding are now expired.</span></em></p>While mRNA vaccines are designed to last longer in the body than mRNA molecules typically would, they are also tested to ensure they are eliminated from livestock long before milking or slaughter.David Verhoeven, Assistant Professor of Vet Microbiology and Preventive Medicine, Iowa State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1905182023-04-27T12:31:56Z2023-04-27T12:31:56Z‘Got polio?’ messaging underscores a vaccine campaign’s success but creates false sense of security as memories of the disease fade in US<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523213/original/file-20230427-22-64ll1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=55%2C130%2C3285%2C2434&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">For much of the 20th century, Americans were used to seeing people bearing the signs of past polio infection.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/boy-helps-his-brother-a-polio-victim-confined-to-a-news-photo/526756448">Genevieve Naylor/Corbis via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“<a href="https://twitter.com/sofia_vignolo/status/1129501200716636160">Got Polio? Me neither. Thanks, Science.</a>”</p>
<p>Messages like this are used in memes, posters, T-shirts and even some billboards to promote routine vaccinations. As this catchy statement reminds people of once-feared diseases of the past, it – perhaps unintentionally – conveys the message that polio has been relegated to the history books.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520043/original/file-20230410-5132-hx8ppo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Leonardo DiCaprio meme 'Remember that time you got polio? Nope? Me neither? Thanks Science!'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520043/original/file-20230410-5132-hx8ppo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520043/original/file-20230410-5132-hx8ppo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520043/original/file-20230410-5132-hx8ppo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520043/original/file-20230410-5132-hx8ppo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520043/original/file-20230410-5132-hx8ppo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520043/original/file-20230410-5132-hx8ppo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520043/original/file-20230410-5132-hx8ppo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This pro-science message uses a popular ‘cheers’ meme format.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Phrasing that aims to encourage immunizations by highlighting their accomplishments implies that some diseases are no longer a threat.</p>
<p>Few people today know much about polio. In 2022, only one-third of surveyed adults in the U.S. were <a href="https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/what-u-s-adults-know-and-believe-about-polio-and-the-bivalent-covid-booster/">aware that polio has no cure</a>. Moreover, a 2020 poll had found that <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/276929/fewer-continue-vaccines-important.aspx">84% of adults viewed vaccinating children as important</a>, a 10% decline from 2001. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified anti-vaccination messaging, while also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.516">delaying routine immunization</a>.</p>
<p>Vaccine-preventable diseases are far from eradicated. Measles outbreaks in unvaccinated or under-vaccinated American communities have begun resurfacing in the past few years, despite a <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/measles/elimination.html">2000 declaration</a> that the virus had been eliminated in the U.S. <a href="https://wonder.cdc.gov/nndss/static/2019/annual/2019-table2l.html">Pertussis cases have been on the rise</a>, with more than 18,000 cases reported in 2019. And in July 2022, polio reappeared in an unvaccinated New York man – the first U.S. diagnosis since 1979. This case helped return attention to polio, causing at least some young adults to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/health/polio-vaccine-history-millennials.html">wonder about their own vaccination status</a>.</p>
<p>A shift in focus to <a href="https://polioeradication.org">immunization in developing countries</a> has further lulled Americans into a false sense of security. While global approaches have been effective and are certainly needed, as the author of “<a href="https://www.umasspress.com/9781625345288/constructing-the-outbreak/">Constructing the Outbreak: Epidemics in Media and Collective Memory</a>,” I suggest that the celebratory messaging is no longer as effective as it once was and runs the risk of making it seem as if polio only lives in history books.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523214/original/file-20230427-560-ekoj1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="semicircle of patients in iron lungs use mirrors to watch a TV" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523214/original/file-20230427-560-ekoj1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523214/original/file-20230427-560-ekoj1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523214/original/file-20230427-560-ekoj1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523214/original/file-20230427-560-ekoj1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523214/original/file-20230427-560-ekoj1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523214/original/file-20230427-560-ekoj1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523214/original/file-20230427-560-ekoj1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Polio patients at Baltimore’s Children’s Hospital watched television from inside the iron lungs that breathed for them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/iron-lung-victims-get-television-set-baltimore-md-iron-lung-news-photo/515427562">Bettmann via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Campaigning against a devastating disease</h2>
<p>Before vaccines, polio – called infantile paralysis or poliomyelitis – was the most feared childhood disease in the U.S. Frequently affecting elementary school kids, the disease sometimes presented like a cold or flu – fever, sore throat and headache. In other cases, limb or spinal pain and numbness first indicated that something was wrong. Paralysis of legs, arms, neck, diaphragm or a combination could occur and, depending on the area affected, render patients unable to walk, lift their arms, or breathe outside of an iron lung.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520095/original/file-20230410-3779-u51y6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="magazine add with images of kids with polio asks for donations" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520095/original/file-20230410-3779-u51y6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520095/original/file-20230410-3779-u51y6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520095/original/file-20230410-3779-u51y6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520095/original/file-20230410-3779-u51y6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520095/original/file-20230410-3779-u51y6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520095/original/file-20230410-3779-u51y6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520095/original/file-20230410-3779-u51y6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Full page ads like this one from 1953 solicited funds to help polio patients.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">March of Dimes</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Only time could <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.1.4602.465">reveal whether the paralysis was permanent</a> or would recede, sometimes to return decades later as <a href="https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/disorders/post-polio-syndrome">Post-Polio Syndrome</a>. Enough people were infected in outbreaks in the 1930s, 1940s and early 1950s that the effects of paralytic polio were quite visible in everyday life in the form of braces, crutches, slings and other mobility devices.</p>
<p>Thanks to the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, beating polio became a national priority. The NFIP grew out of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Warm Springs Foundation. <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-fdrs-polio-crusade-teaches-us-about-presidential-leadership-amid-crisis-137215">Roosevelt himself had been partially paralyzed</a> by polio, and the NFIP provided funds for public education, research and survivors’ rehabilitation.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523215/original/file-20230427-986-uvz7nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Eleanor Roosevelt smiles with a young boy holding a 'Mothers March on Polio' scroll" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523215/original/file-20230427-986-uvz7nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523215/original/file-20230427-986-uvz7nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523215/original/file-20230427-986-uvz7nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523215/original/file-20230427-986-uvz7nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523215/original/file-20230427-986-uvz7nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=955&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523215/original/file-20230427-986-uvz7nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=955&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523215/original/file-20230427-986-uvz7nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=955&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Eleanor Roosevelt helped inaugurate the Mothers’ March on Polio to raise money to fight the disease.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-mothers-march-on-polio-was-inaugurated-december-10-1953-news-photo/535083978">Bettmann/CORBIS via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Its campaigns were prolific and diverse, combining interpersonal and mass communication strategies.</p>
<p>From FDR “Birthday Ball” celebrations to parades and elementary school fundraising competitions, various groups raised money. <a href="https://www.umasspress.com/9781625345288/constructing-the-outbreak/">High schoolers performed polio-themed plays</a>, putting the disease itself on trial in “The People vs. Polio.” People passed around collection boxes at movie theaters and other public gatherings.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520093/original/file-20230410-18-dbduj8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="text of three 'I will not' and 'I will' points" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520093/original/file-20230410-18-dbduj8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520093/original/file-20230410-18-dbduj8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1569&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520093/original/file-20230410-18-dbduj8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1569&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520093/original/file-20230410-18-dbduj8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1569&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520093/original/file-20230410-18-dbduj8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1972&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520093/original/file-20230410-18-dbduj8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1972&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/520093/original/file-20230410-18-dbduj8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1972&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An ad placed in Vogue in 1952 laid out the ‘Polio Pledge.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Campaigns used every medium. Brochures and short films raised awareness of the threat of polio, emphasizing the need for funding to support patient rehabilitation and scientific research. The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis generated scores of radio scripts and hired Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley and other famous voices to read them. <a href="https://youtu.be/fOkJAIPkxRA">Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOXw-Px-X-8&t=4s">Lucille Ball</a> and other Hollywood stars also joined the fight. Comic strips and cartoons featuring Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck rallied for March of Dimes funds to help polio patients.</p>
<p>Starting in 1946, the NFIP featured children with crutches and braces who had survived polio as “<a href="https://www.marchofdimes.org/about/news/memoriam-donald-anderson-first-poster-child-1940-2014">poster children</a>” asking for funds to help them walk again. News stories covered outbreaks and polio epidemics, detailing the devastation of the disease on individuals, families and communities, while advising families how to reduce risk through the “Polio Pledge for Parents,” which provided a <a href="https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn83031653/1952-07-17/ed-1/seq-4/">list of do’s and don'ts</a> during summer months.</p>
<h2>From public enemy No. 1 to success story</h2>
<p>The work of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis yielded unprecedented and continuous success, providing hospitals with equipment during epidemics and supporting the development of vaccines. Following the largest vaccine trial in history, on April 12, 1955, the Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center announced that Jonas Salk’s vaccine was <a href="https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.45.5_Pt_1.575">80%-90% effective</a> against paralytic polio and officially <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-polio-vaccine-mess-and-the-lessons-it-holds-about-federal-coordination-for-todays-covid-19-vaccination-effort-152806">ready for general use</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523216/original/file-20230427-27-uurxai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="families in line outside a school with a sign 'Entrance for polio shots' in 1955" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523216/original/file-20230427-27-uurxai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523216/original/file-20230427-27-uurxai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523216/original/file-20230427-27-uurxai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523216/original/file-20230427-27-uurxai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523216/original/file-20230427-27-uurxai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523216/original/file-20230427-27-uurxai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523216/original/file-20230427-27-uurxai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Once a vaccine was available, people lined up to protect themselves and their families from the virus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/san-diego-california-first-and-second-graders-at-the-kit-news-photo/514704620">Bettmann via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Over the next decade, the NFIP shifted its focus to widespread immunization, again using both mass media and local campaigns. With Salk’s vaccine, and then Albert Sabin’s, polio cases fell quickly, from the peak of 57,879 cases in 1952 to <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/4593032">only 72 cases in 1965</a>, with the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/polio/what-is-polio/polio-us.html">last naturally occurring U.S. case in 1979</a>.</p>
<p>The repeated declaration of what polio vaccines could and were accomplishing was <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/05/03/988756973/cant-help-falling-in-love-with-a-vaccine-how-polio-campaign-beat-vaccine-hesitan">strategically effective</a> in persuading more people to get their shots. The American public of the 1960s and 1970s had lived through repeated polio epidemics and knew both the fear of contracting the disease and its visible aftereffects. As of 2021, <a href="https://immunizationdata.who.int/pages/coverage/POL.html?CODE=USA&ANTIGEN=POL3&YEAR=">92.7% of Americans</a> were fully protected by the vaccine, though these rates have been in decline since 2010 and <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/schoolvaxview/data-reports/index.html">fluctuate by region</a>.</p>
<p>Public health rhetoric that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.10.005">focused on this vaccine success story</a> worked around the world in the late 1980s and 1990s. Gradually, though, the perceived threat in the U.S. of polio and other vaccine-preventable diseases dissipated over generations as vaccinations largely eliminated the risk. Most people in developed countries <a href="https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/vaccines-protect-children-harmful-infectious-diseases">lack firsthand experiences</a> of just how terrifying these diseases are, having never experienced polio, diphtheria, measles or pertussis, or lost family members to them.</p>
<p>At the same time that polio has been largely forgotten in the U.S., <a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-misinformation-scientists-create-a-psychological-vaccine-to-protect-against-fake-news-153024">anti-vaccination messages have been spreading disinformation</a> that distorts the risk of vaccines, ignoring the realities of the diseases they immunize against.</p>
<p>Rhetoric from polio vaccine campaigns in the 1950s and 1960s emphasized the risks of not getting immunized – acute illness, life-changing pain and paralysis or even death. In the 21st century U.S., immunization campaigns no longer emphasize these risks, and it’s easy to forget the potentially deadly repercussions of skipping vaccines.</p>
<p>I believe pervasive public health messaging can counter anti-vaccination disinformation. A reminder for the American public about this still dangerous disease can help ensure that “Got Polio?” does not become a serious question.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190518/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine A. Foss does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Polio vaccines have been a massive public health victory in the US. But purely celebratory messaging overlooks the ongoing threat if vaccination rates fall.Katherine A. Foss, Professor of Media Studies, Middle Tennessee State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1956952022-12-01T13:58:48Z2022-12-01T13:58:48ZTwitter lifted its ban on COVID misinformation – research shows this is a grave risk to public health<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/498350/original/file-20221130-16-b742hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C17%2C3848%2C2540&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The restraints on COVID-19 misinformation on Twitter are off.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Twitter/e03d56c75ade40c29c3734ebcb9793fe/photo">AP Photo/Jeff Chiu</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Twitter’s decision to no longer enforce its <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/29/twitter-covid-misinformation-policy/">COVID-19 misinformation policy</a>, quietly posted on the site’s rules page and listed as effective Nov. 23, 2022, has researchers and experts in public health seriously concerned about the possible repercussions. </p>
<p>Health misinformation is not new. A classic case is the misinformation about a purported but now disproven <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02989-9">link between autism and the MMR vaccine</a> based on a discredited study published in 1998. Such misinformation has severe consequences for public health. Countries that had stronger anti-vaccine movements against diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccines <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(97)04334-1">faced a higher incidence of pertussis</a> in the late-20th century, for example. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JpFHYKcAAAAJ&hl=en">researcher who studies social media</a>, I believe that reducing content moderation is a significant step in the wrong direction, especially in light of the uphill battle social media platforms face in combating misinformation and disinformation. And the stakes are especially high in combating medical misinformation.</p>
<h2>Misinformation on social media</h2>
<p>There are three key differences between earlier forms of misinformation and misinformation spread on social media.</p>
<p>First, social media enables misinformation to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73510-5">spread at a much greater scale, speed and scope</a>.</p>
<p>Second, content that is sensational and likely to trigger emotions is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01813-2">more likely to go viral on social media</a>, making falsehoods easier to spread than the truth.</p>
<p>Third, digital platforms such as Twitter <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3449152">play a gatekeeping role</a> in the way they aggregate, curate and amplify content. This means that misinformation on emotionally triggering topics such as vaccines can readily gain attention. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gE9dFM4Bs0k?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">How to spot online misinformation.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The spread of misinformation during the pandemic has been dubbed an <a href="https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic#tab=tab_1">infodemic</a> by the World Health Organization. There is considerable evidence that COVID-19-related misinformation on social media <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/37367">reduces vaccine uptake</a>. Public health experts have cautioned that misinformation on social media <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/30642">seriously hampers progress</a> toward herd immunity, weakening society’s ability to deal with new COVID-19 variants. </p>
<p>Misinformation on social media <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004206">fuels public doubts</a> about vaccine safety. Studies show that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is driven by a <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9060593">misunderstanding of herd immunity and beliefs in conspiracy theories</a>. </p>
<h2>Combating misinformation</h2>
<p>The social media platforms’ content moderation policies and stances towards misinformation are crucial for combating misinformation. In the absence of strong content moderation policies on Twitter, algorithmic content curation and recommendation are likely to boost the spread of misinformation by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3449152">increasing echo chamber effects</a>, for example, exacerbating partisan differences in exposure to content. Algorithmic bias in recommendation systems <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818801010">could also further accentuate global healthcare disparities</a> and racial disparities in vaccine uptake. </p>
<p>There is evidence that some less-regulated platforms such as Gab may <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73510-5/tables/2">amplify the impact of unreliable sources</a> and increase COVID-19 misinformation. There is also evidence that the misinformation ecosystem can lure people who are on social media platforms that invest in content moderation <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01452-z">to accept misinformation</a> that originates on less moderated platforms. </p>
<p>The danger then is that not only will there be greater anti-vaccine discourse on Twitter, but that such toxic speech can spill over into other online platforms that may be investing in combating medical misinformation. </p>
<p>The Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 vaccine monitor reveals that public trust for COVID-19 information from authoritative sources such as governments <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/dashboard/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-dashboard/#(mis)information">has fallen significantly</a>, with serious consequences for public health. For example, the share of Republicans who said they trust the Food and Drug Administration fell from 62% to 43% from December 2020 to October 2022.</p>
<p>In 2021, a <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-misinformation-advisory.pdf">U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory</a> identified that social media platforms’ content moderation policies need to:</p>
<ul>
<li>pay attention to the design of recommendation algorithms.</li>
<li>prioritize early detection of misinformation.</li>
<li>amplify information from credible sources of online health information.</li>
</ul>
<p>These priorities require <a href="https://nam.edu/identifying-credible-sources-of-health-information-in-social-media-principles-and-attributes/">partnerships between healthcare organizations and social media platforms</a> to develop best practice guidelines to address healthcare misinformation. Developing and enforcing effective content moderation policies takes planning and resources.</p>
<p>In light of what researchers know about COVID-19 misinformation on Twitter, I believe that the announcement that the company will no longer ban COVID-19-related misinformation is troubling, to say the least.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195695/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anjana Susarla does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A wealth of research on social media shows that COVID-19 misinformation is damaging to public health.Anjana Susarla, Professor of Information Systems, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1856662022-06-24T11:53:22Z2022-06-24T11:53:22ZMisinformation will be rampant when it comes to COVID-19 shots for young children – here’s what you can do to counter it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470619/original/file-20220623-51620-sao1c0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Talking about vaccines with trusted health care providers and with family can help wade through the sea of information – and misinformation. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/pediatrician-with-girl-in-clinic-during-covid-19-royalty-free-image/1318834248?adppopup=true">Morsa Images/DigitalVison via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/s0618-children-vaccine.html">all children ages 6 months to 5 years</a> on June 18, 2022, it opened the door for <a href="https://theconversation.com/at-last-covid-19-shots-for-little-kids-5-essential-reads-185007">nearly 20 million children to get vaccinated</a>.</p>
<p>While this news comes as a relief to many parents who have been anxiously waiting to get their young children vaccinated, a May 2022 survey found that the majority of parents with children under 5 <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-february-2022/">feel they don’t have enough information</a> about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for this age group. About 40% also said that information from federal health agencies, such as the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, about vaccines for this age group was confusing.</p>
<p>This is particularly concerning because confusing messaging from public health agencies opens the door for anti-vaccine activities on social media that target vulnerable parents.</p>
<p>We are a team of <a href="https://www.pediatrics.pitt.edu/people/maya-indira-ragavan-md-mph-ms">medical</a> and <a href="https://publichealth.pitt.edu/home/directory/jaime-sidani">public health</a> professionals at the University of Pittsburgh. We have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.03.003">extensive experience</a> researching <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-wHMfaIAAAAJ&hl=en">vaccine misinformation on social media</a> and <a href="https://www.pediatrics.pitt.edu/about-us/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/community-and-culture/pittsburgh-community-vaccine;%20https://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms/biosketch.htm">working with community partners</a> to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.08.021">address vaccine hesitancy</a>, counter misinformation and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=8RBqepAAAAAJ&cstart=20&pagesize=80&citation_for_view=8RBqepAAAAAJ:TQgYirikUcIC">promote vaccine equity</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yhsLob344MY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Social media is a ripe breeding ground for vaccine misinformation.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Through this work, we have seen and studied the ways that anti-vaccine activists on social media target vulnerable parents who are trying to navigate the challenges of digesting health information to make appropriate choices for their children.</p>
<h2>Social media and vaccine misinformation</h2>
<p>Anti-vaccine activists are a small but vocal group. According to research conducted by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate, <a href="https://www.counterhate.com/disinformationdozen">just 12 social media accounts</a> – the “disinformation dozen” – are <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes">behind the majority</a> of anti-vaccine posts on Facebook. Studies also show that only <a href="https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0396">about 2% of parents</a> reject all vaccines for their children. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-007609">A larger group</a>, or about 20% of parents, can more accurately be described as vaccine hesitant, which means they are undecided about having their children receive vaccines <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html">as recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention</a>. </p>
<p>When it comes to COVID-19 shots, as of May 2022 about 20% of parents with children ages 6 months to 5 years said they would <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-february-2022/">get their child vaccinated right away</a>. Another 25% said they would wait to see how the vaccine is working, and 35% said they would definitely not get their child vaccinated.</p>
<p>It can be difficult for parents to sort through the large amount of information available about COVID-19 vaccines – both true and untrue. In their search for answers, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2019.09.009">some parents turn to social media platforms</a>. The problem is, these parents are often targeted by anti-vaccine activists who are better organized and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1">more skilled at tailoring their messages</a> to the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.03.003">varied concerns of people who are vaccine hesitant</a> than are pro-vaccine activists. </p>
<p>Social media, in particular, has been <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30565-X">a primary vehicle</a> for the spread of misinformation. Although sometimes misinformation is blatantly false, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.009">other times it is more like a game of telephone</a>. A kernel of truth gets modified slightly as it is retold, which ends up becoming something untrue. Unfortunately, exposure to COVID-19 misinformation has been shown to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1">reduce people’s intent to get vaccinated</a>.</p>
<h2>Addressing parents’ vaccine concerns</h2>
<p>So how can pediatricians and other health care professionals empower parents to feel confident in the choice to get their children vaccinated for COVID-19? </p>
<p>The answer may lie in working with communities to promote the vaccine as trustworthy instead of simply asking communities to trust it. We are part of the Pittsburgh Community Vaccine Collaborative, which is a community-academic partnership that seeks to ensure equitable access to the COVID-19 vaccines. Through that effort, we have focused on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399211029954">building trustworthiness of the vaccines</a> and of the providers and health systems that are offering the vaccines in their communities. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/13/amid-coronavirus-threat-americans-generally-have-a-high-level-of-trust-in-medical-doctors/">Health care providers are a trusted source of information</a> for COVID-19 vaccine information, but they are not the only sources. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2017.1394533">Research has found</a> that it is important to lean on the expertise and voices of community partners, community health workers and religious leaders.</p>
<p>Our research suggests that pediatricians and public health professionals <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.08.021">can effectively use social media</a> to promote vaccination and provide families with reputable scientific information to address their questions and concerns. Results of a survey that was <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2019.09.009">published in Academic Pediatrics</a> found that 96% of parents used social media. Of those, 68% reported using it for health information.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://kidspluspgh.com/">a pediatric group</a> we partner with <a href="https://people.com/human-interest/dr-todd-wolynn-takes-on-anti-vaxxers-science-singing-silly/">uses comedy combined with information</a> to combat myths and answer questions about the COVID-19 vaccines. </p>
<iframe src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed/v2/6940691573801749765?lang=en-US" style="border:0;width:100%;min-height:825px;" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00099228211046499">Research shows</a> that parents who report high COVID-19 vaccine intention for themselves also report high COVID-19 vaccine intention for their children. Therefore, talking about vaccines as a family may be helpful in combating misinformation around the COVID-19 vaccine. In addition, parents who have had their children vaccinated can use social media to share their experiences and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109979">make it feel more normal</a> and accepted among their peers.</p>
<p>We have also learned that promoting <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/news-and-media-literacy/what-is-media-literacy-and-why-is-it-important">media literacy</a>, which encourages people to question the media information they come into contact with, can empower parents to sift through the “<a href="https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic">infodemic</a>” of COVID-19 vaccine information. </p>
<p>While social media platforms have announced policies of removing vaccine misinformation, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306288">research suggests</a> this is not always effective at reducing the influence of such misinformation. Learning how to find the source of a piece of information and thinking about who are the intended targets may help people determine whether the information is true or distorted.</p>
<h2>Next steps</h2>
<p>Addressing COVID-19 vaccine misinformation can feel overwhelming. The <a href="https://www.aap.org/en/">American Academy of Pediatrics</a> has <a href="https://healthychildren.org/English/tips-tools/ask-the-pediatrician/Pages/when-can-children-get-the-COVID-19-vaccine.aspx;%20https://www.healthychildren.org/English/news/Pages/aap-applauds-approval-of-safe-effective-covid-19-vaccines-for-children-ages-6-months-and-older.aspx">helpful information for parents</a> to support making decisions around the COVID-19 vaccine. Parents can also have conversations with their children about media literacy and evaluating information. And they can talk to their children – especially adolescent-age children – about how getting the COVID-19 vaccine can protect them and others. </p>
<p>For questions around COVID-19 vaccines for children of all ages, we recommend you talk with your pediatrician or another health care provider. During that visit, you can also make sure your child is up to date on other vaccines, as <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6919e2">studies have shown</a> that vaccine rates for routine childhood vaccines have decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>Increasing COVID-19 vaccine rates for children is important to promote their health and wellness, as well as to move closer to ending the pandemic. </p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of <a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-for-children-how-parents-are-influenced-by-misinformation-and-how-they-can-counter-it-173212">an article originally published</a> on Dec. 15, 2021.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185666/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jaime Sidani receives funding from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, the American Heart Association, and the National Institutes of Health. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beth Hoffman receives funding from the Richard King Mellon Foundation and the National Institutes of Health</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maya Ragavan currently received funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She received funding from a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences KL2 and an Allegheny County Health Department grant. </span></em></p>With COVID-19 shots finally available for infants and preschoolers, knowing how to combat misinformation on social media and elsewhere could be more important than ever.Jaime Sidani, Assistant Professor of Public Health, University of PittsburghBeth Hoffman, Postdoctoral Associate in Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, University of PittsburghMaya Ragavan, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of PittsburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1785872022-03-21T18:54:18Z2022-03-21T18:54:18ZResearch dispels myth that COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility, but misinformation persists<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/453231/original/file-20220321-19-10uqz5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=714%2C14%2C4191%2C3130&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines affecting fertility have no realistic basis.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source"> (AP Photo/John Locher)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/the-fault-in-our-stars-aaron-rodgers-reminds-us-why-celebrity-shouldnt-trump-science-171648">Misinformation</a> about <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/20/1016912079/the-life-cycle-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-lie">COVID-19 vaccines and fertility</a> has propagated online despite the vaccines’ <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/safety-of-vaccines.html">clear safety profile</a>. </p>
<p>Fortunately, those considering having kids can relax when it comes to these crucial shots. These claims <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.2404">lack any realistic basis</a>. As a medical doctor and a COVID-19 genetics researcher, I’d like to discuss what the evidence says.</p>
<h2>Misinformation about fertility</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://theconversation.com/ca/topics/vaccine-confidence-in-canada-107061">Click here for more articles in our series about vaccine confidence.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some sources of <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2021/06/scicheck-research-rebuts-baseless-claims-linking-covid-19-vaccines-to-male-infertility/">misinformation claim that the COVID-19 vaccines cause male sterility</a>. For this to be true, the vaccines would have to damage sperm quality, drastically reduce sperm count or interfere with the mechanisms inherent in male ejaculation. Quality clinical evidence has demonstrated that none of these parameters are affected by the vaccine, so men are not being made sterile. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.9976">study in Florida</a> recruited around 45 men and compared their sperm measures before and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Interestingly, the study found that men who received the vaccine had more sperm, greater semen volume, and sperm more able to move around and fertilize an egg.</p>
<p>Pregnancy can be an exciting time but can also <a href="https://www.anxietycanada.com/articles/common-worries-during-pregnancy/">provoke worry</a> about the the safety of anything that enters the body, including vaccines. Fortunately, the COVID-19 vaccines are safe during pregnancy. </p>
<p>Sources of misinformation have claimed that COVID-19 vaccines can lead to loss of pregnancy, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57552527">with vague references to antibody responses or other concepts that sound scientific</a>. However, the COVID-19 vaccines will not make a pregnant woman any more likely to have a miscarriage. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A pregnant woman sitting a table across from a health-care worker in scrubs and a face mask who is preparing to give her a shot." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/453237/original/file-20220321-17-qf3rlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/453237/original/file-20220321-17-qf3rlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453237/original/file-20220321-17-qf3rlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453237/original/file-20220321-17-qf3rlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453237/original/file-20220321-17-qf3rlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453237/original/file-20220321-17-qf3rlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453237/original/file-20220321-17-qf3rlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">COVID-19 vaccines do not increase the risk of miscarriage.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A group of physicians spanning the United States <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.15494">studied the pregnancy outcomes for over 100,000 pregnancies</a>. When the study was done, around 14 per cent of everyone investigated had received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine. They found that women who had the shot were no more likely to have a miscarriage than those who did not. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.2404">There are other misinformation claims along the lines of antibodies attacking the placenta, shots equating with infertility or interference with hormones</a>. Unsurprisingly, all of these have been debunked.</p>
<h2>The real danger is COVID-19 infection</h2>
<p>While there is no evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine can impact fertility or pregnancy, there is evidence that a COVID-19 infection can cause harm. At its extreme, the disease can be fatal — <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3320">an outcome that is more likely if COVID-19 infection happens during pregnancy</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255994">Multiple studies have also documented an increased risk of miscarriage following a COVID-19 infection</a>. However, miscarriage is not the only risk. The respiratory distress that can come with COVID-19, as well as the inflammation, can affect fetal growth, which could lead to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2011.01.032">health and developmental problems</a> in a baby carried to term. </p>
<p>Carried to term is an important point here because pregnant women with COVID-19 are more likely to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3320">deliver their babies early</a>. This is associated with health risks for the baby, including an increased risk of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11385/">requiring intensive care</a>.</p>
<h2>The case for COVID-19 vaccination</h2>
<p>It makes sense to get a COVID-19 vaccine. The risk of developing COVID-19 still exists and is still dangerous. This remains true while the case counts have trended downwards in North America to the tens of thousands from nearly one million a day in January. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/453215/original/file-20220321-25-4mlpln.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A line graph showing decreasing COVID-19 cases since the end of December 2021 until March 19, 2022." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/453215/original/file-20220321-25-4mlpln.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/453215/original/file-20220321-25-4mlpln.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453215/original/file-20220321-25-4mlpln.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453215/original/file-20220321-25-4mlpln.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453215/original/file-20220321-25-4mlpln.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453215/original/file-20220321-25-4mlpln.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453215/original/file-20220321-25-4mlpln.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">As COVID-19 remains a danger, vaccination remains the best protection.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Johns Hopkins University CSSE COVID-19 Data)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Fortunately, the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html">vaccine offers excellent protection</a> against developing an infection. It also dramatically decreases the chance of severe disease if infection does occur. When considering what poses the greatest danger to a pregnant woman or a couple looking to have children, severe illness poses the most significant risk of causing fertility or pregnancy problems.</p>
<p>COVID-19 misinformation is not going to go away. Previous vaccine misinformation has lingered despite a complete lack of evidence. For example, <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-3179">the myth of a vaccine-autism link was debunked in 1998</a>, but vaccine hesitancy has persisted despite copious amounts of clinical evidence that these claims lack any sound basis. Articles like this one will not change some people’s minds, but ultimately that is not the goal. </p>
<p>The goal of sharing medical information from a physician’s point of view is to provide people with the knowledge that they need to make an informed health-care decision. While I strongly recommend the vaccine to everyone, individuals are the ones who choose what they seek to do with their bodies. </p>
<p>Public health can appropriately guide individuals towards making decisions in their and their community’s best interests, as with vaccine mandates. Individuals still maintain their autonomy, even if accompanied by consequences like employment issues. If one reflects on what is best for a baby, the evidence is clear. It is an individual’s prerogative on what to do with that information.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178587/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julian Daniel Sunday Willett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Some of the most persistent myths about COVID-19 vaccination have been false rumours that it can affect fertility in men or women. There has never been any evidence to support this misinformation.Julian Daniel Sunday Willett, PhD Candidate, Quantitative Life Sciences, McGill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1754922022-02-09T16:05:01Z2022-02-09T16:05:01ZHow books, movies and TV help us understand the infodemic, anti-vax messages and conspiracy theories<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/442386/original/file-20220124-19-1mmsjgy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1277%2C915&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">English printmaker James Gillray's 'The Cow-Pock.'</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(The Cow-Pock/James Gillray)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 175px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/how-books--movies-and-tv-help-us-understand-the-infodemic--anti-vax-messages-and-conspiracy-theories" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The <a href="https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic#tab=tab_1">World Health Organization defines an infodemic</a> as “too much information including false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak.”</p>
<p>While the term is new, the problem is not. For centuries, writers have recognized that disease outbreaks spur the spread of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-021-01565-3">incorrect information, or misinformation</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-canadians-can-use-social-media-to-help-debunk-covid-19-misinformation-155653">How Canadians can use social media to help debunk COVID-19 misinformation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>My research focuses on 19th-century literature, including representations of medicine, and extends to television series that draw on this cultural history. Conspiracy theories, anti-vaxx positions and fraudulent treatments were just as concerning in the past as they are today. </p>
<p>For instance, in 1805 physician <a href="https://wellcomecollection.org/works/nv3ggkme">William Rowley</a> suggested that a vaccinated “boy’s face” was “transforming” to look like “a cow,” a vaccination fear that English printmaker James Gillray represented <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1851-0901-1091">in his cartoon <em>The Cow-Pock</em></a>.</p>
<h2>An epidemic frenzy</h2>
<p>English writer Daniel Defoe’s <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/376/376-h/376-h.htm"><em>Journal of the Plague Year</em></a> describes the response to the bubonic plague in 1665 London. In it, Defoe details how victims of fraudulent treatments “not only spent their money but even poisoned themselves beforehand for fear of the poison of infection.” </p>
<p>This rings similar to the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-warns-seller-marketing-dangerous-chlorine-dioxide-products-claim">discredited COVID-19 treatments that have made people sick</a> — like <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.621370">chlorine dioxide</a>.</p>
<p><em>Journal of the Plague Year</em> was <a href="https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_History_of_the_Great_Plague_in_Londo/h1phAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0">republished in 1832</a> to provide guidance in the middle of the second cholera pandemic. Almost a decade later (1841), Scottish author Charles Mackay published the first version of his <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm"><em>Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions</em></a>. In it he refers to misinformation spreading during outbreaks. </p>
<p>Mackay writes about the wide belief in a detailed story about a devil manipulating people into spreading disease as “an epidemic frenzy … as contagious as the plague.”</p>
<h2>Infodemic echoes of television</h2>
<p>The current infodemic isn’t just familiar because of this history. Culture constantly recycles materials: stories are re-told, revised and re-told again. </p>
<p>Misinformation has claimed that <a href="https://www.vox.com/22639366/covid-19-vaccine-fertility-pregnancy-myths">vaccines suppress fertility</a>, as in <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2384811/"><em>Utopia</em></a>, and tied <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nine-covid-19-myths-that-just-wont-go-away/">viruses to global conspiracies</a>, as in <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2758950/"><em>Helix</em></a>. </p>
<p>We can also add films to the list. 2007’s <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480249/"><em>I Am Legend</em></a> was specifically <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/10/entertainment/i-am-legend-vaccines-trnd/index.html">used for misinformation</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dtKMEAXyPkg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Trailer for ‘I Am Legend.’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/05/26/republicans-democrats-misinformation">survey in the United States</a> found that some people believed “a mass vaccination campaign against COVID-19” would “implant microchips in people that would be used to track” them. Those beliefs mix two arc narratives in the first run of <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106179/"><em>The X-Files</em></a> — one on microchips being secretly implanted to track people and another on a conspiracy tied to smallpox vaccinations. </p>
<p>These are just a few examples. Numerous articles have identified <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-coronavirus-koontz-book-idUSKCN20M19I">books</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/arts/television/utopia-gillian-flynn.html">series</a>, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/entertainment/contagion-and-pandemics-in-movies/index.html">films</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101611">even video games</a> that resonate with the current pandemic and misinformation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-misinformation-is-a-health-risk-tech-companies-need-to-remove-harmful-content-not-tweak-their-algorithms-175364">COVID misinformation is a health risk – tech companies need to remove harmful content not tweak their algorithms</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Fictions that use viruses are generally not about science, though. A virus creates story-telling opportunities for debates about ethics that give us key information about characters. High stakes, a difficult problem and limited time — that’s a solid recipe for fast-paced adventure. </p>
<p>This works well with American writer Joseph Campbell’s hero-quest formula, <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-you-monomythic-joseph-campbell-and-the-heros-journey-27074">widely used for script-writing</a>, in which a hero, with helpers, must overcome a series of obstacles and opponents to eliminate a danger to his world.</p>
<h2>Scientist heroes and fringe science</h2>
<p>For some dangers, such as a virus, you need a scientist to be Campbell’s hero or helper. Scientist-heroes, often with multiple areas of expertise, must think and act quickly to match the pace of adventure. </p>
<p>Standard quality-control mechanisms — peer review, ethics review, academic oversight, medical regulations — are too slow and boring to fit such pacing. In adventure-driven television, they are typically either ignored or repurposed as obstacles for the hero.</p>
<p>The hero’s scientist-father in <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3250026/"><em>Zoo</em></a> was fired by a university because of his theories, despite the series depicting he was correct. A similar dynamic is played out in <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119644/"><em>Fringe</em></a>. The U.S. government is the scientist-hero’s main obstacle in the first season of <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6170874/"><em>Salvation</em></a>. </p>
<p>Regulations, laws and government conspiracies all interfere with what the scientist-hero knows they must do to save the world. Misinformation does this too, and when people are accused of spreading misinformation, they’re often able to maintain their influence despite <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/24/technology/joseph-mercola-coronavirus-misinformation-online.html">multiple findings of wrongdoing</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q-sIi0fw8nM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Trailer for TV series ‘Zoo.’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The power of culture</h2>
<p>Efforts to address misinformation have called attention to <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/canada-not-immune-to-qanon-as-pandemic-fuels-conspiracy-theories-experts-say-1.5226762">extremism</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/cultural-factors-are-behind-disinformation-pandemic-why-this-matters-141884">attitudes towards the media</a> and <a href="https://www.scienceupfirst.com/">the need for more scientific education</a>. This is all crucial work, but there’s also evidence that <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-checking-may-be-important-but-it-wont-help-americans-learn-to-disagree-better-174034">fact-checking</a> may not be enough to change people’s minds. </p>
<p>Perhaps fact-checking is inadequate in part because misinformation circulates in stories. In the real world, being censured, or accused of failing to meet certain standards, can be devastating professionally. In a story, it can do the opposite: it can show the scientist-hero knows more than recognized experts.</p>
<p>Stories build powerful emotional attachments. We have accounts going back centuries of <a href="https://victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/boev1.html">readers deeply worried about the fate of fictional characters</a>. We root for heroes, boo their opponents and get anxious for the fictional problem to be solved. Facts have very little to do with it.</p>
<p>Infodemics make use of these cultural energies and more attention to this aspect of misinformation can help us better address it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175492/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julia M. Wright receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. She chaired the Royal Society of Canada's working group on Protecting Public Advice (<a href="https://rsc-src.ca/en/themes/protecting-public-advice">https://rsc-src.ca/en/themes/protecting-public-advice</a>).</span></em></p>Stories build powerful emotional attachments. We root for heroes, boo their opponents and get anxious for the fictional problem to be solved. Facts have very little to do with it.Julia M. Wright, George Munro Chair in Literature and Rhetoric, Dalhousie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1740342022-01-18T13:40:48Z2022-01-18T13:40:48ZFact-checking may be important, but it won’t help Americans learn to disagree better<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440135/original/file-20220110-23-1ml31og.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=49%2C0%2C5472%2C3628&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You're not the only one having trouble discerning the truth.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/pregnant-woman-with-pc-tablet-remembering-important-royalty-free-image/1210098351">nicoletaionescu/iStock/Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Entering the new year, Americans are increasingly divided. They clash not only over differing opinions on COVID-19 risk or abortion, but basic facts like election counts and whether vaccines work. Surveying rising political antagonism, journalist George Packer recently <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/imagine-death-american-democracy-trump-insurrection/620841/">wondered in The Atlantic</a>, “Are we doomed?”</p>
<p>It is common to blame people who are intentionally distributing false information for these divisions. Nobel Prize-winning journalist Maria Ressa says Facebook’s “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/09/facebook-biased-against-facts-nobel-peace-prize-winner-philippines-maria-ressa-misinformation">[bias] against facts</a>” threatens democracy. Others lament losing the “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/26/democracy-requires-shared-sense-reality-america-is-failing-test/">shared sense of reality</a>” and “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-obama-fears-for-our-democracy/617087/">common baseline of fact</a>” thought to be a prerequisite for democracy.</p>
<p>Fact-checking, the rigorous independent verification of claims, is often presented as vital for fighting falsehoods. Elena Hernandez, a spokesperson for YouTube, <a href="https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/youtube-misinformation-fact-checking-letter/">states that</a> “Fact checking is a crucial tool to help viewers make their own informed decisions” and “to address the spread of misinformation.” Ariel Riera, head of Argentina-based fact-checking organization Chequeado, <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2020/03/27/fact-checking-matters-now-more-than-ever/">argues</a> that fact checking and “quality information” are key in the fight against “the COVID-19 ‘infodemic.‘”</p>
<p>Many people, including TV commentator <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/john-oliver-tackles-whatsapp-misinformation-immigrants-rcna2861">John Oliver</a>, are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/10/28/misinformation-spanish-facebook-social-media/">demanding</a> that social media platforms better flag and combat the “flood of lies.” And worried Twitter engineers sought to “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/11/01/twitter-climate-disinformation/">pre-bunk</a>” viral falsehoods before they arose during the United Nations’ Glasgow climate summit in 2021. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=pgIYWJUAAAAJ">social scientist</a> who researches the role of truth in a democracy, I believe this response to Americans’ deepening political divisions is missing something. </p>
<p>Fact-checking may be vital for media literacy, discouraging politicians from lying and correcting the journalistic record. But I worry about citizens hoping for too much from fact-checking, and that fact checks oversimplify and distort Americans’ political conflicts. </p>
<p>Whether democracy requires a shared sense of reality or not, the more fundamental prerequisite is that citizens are capable of civilly working through their disagreements. </p>
<h2>Curing misinformation?</h2>
<p>Misinformation is no doubt troubling. COVID-19 fatalities and vaccine refusal are <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate">much higher</a> among Republicans, who are more likely to believe unproven claims that COVID-19 deaths are intentionally exaggerated or that the vaccine harms reproductive health. And studies find that exposure to misinformation is <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01056-1">correlated with a reduced willingness</a> to get vaccinated. </p>
<p>Brookings Institution researchers found fact-checking <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/when-are-readers-likely-to-believe-a-fact-check/">mostly influences the politically uncommitted</a> – those who do not have much information about an issue, rather than those who have inaccurate information. And debunking can <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/vaccine-myth-busting-can-backfire/383700/">backfire</a>: Informing people that the flu shot cannot cause the flu or that the MMR injection is safe for children may make vaccine skeptics even more hesitant. Some participants in a study appeared to reject the information because it threatened their worldview. But some scientists <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7462781/">say</a> that fact-checking only very rarely backfires. </p>
<p>A 2019 experiment found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4">carefully crafted rebuttals to misinformation</a> could dull the effects of false claims about vaccines or climate change, even for conservatives. </p>
<p>Still, a 2020 meta-analysis, a study that systematically combines dozens of research findings, concluded that fact-checking’s impact on people’s beliefs is “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894">quite weak</a>.” The more that a study looked like the real world, the less fact-checking changed participants’ minds.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440136/original/file-20220110-17-17d86us.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A group of people sit and stand in a meeting room" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440136/original/file-20220110-17-17d86us.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440136/original/file-20220110-17-17d86us.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/440136/original/file-20220110-17-17d86us.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/440136/original/file-20220110-17-17d86us.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/440136/original/file-20220110-17-17d86us.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/440136/original/file-20220110-17-17d86us.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/440136/original/file-20220110-17-17d86us.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When citizens of differing views meet up, getting them working together may be more effective than getting them to agree on specific facts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-jackman-town-office-was-filled-with-50-residents-to-news-photo/909720354">David Leaming/Portland Portland Press Herald via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Not that simple</h2>
<p>The task of fact-checking also comes with its own set of problems. In my view, when the science is complex and uncertain, fact-checking’s biggest risk is exaggerating scientific consensus. </p>
<p>For example, the idea that COVID-19 might have emerged, or escaped, from a Wuhan, China, laboratory was labeled as “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/01/was-new-coronavirus-accidentally-released-wuhan-lab-its-doubtful">doubtful</a>” in 2020 by The Washington Post’s fact-checkers. Facebook flagged it as “<a href="https://unherd.com/thepost/facebook-censors-award-winning-journalist-for-criticising-the-who/">false information</a>” in early 2021. But <a href="https://undark.org/2021/03/17/lab-leak-science-lost-in-politics/">many scientists</a> think the hypothesis <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x">merits investigation</a>.</p>
<p>Or consider how <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/08/13/fact-check-vaccine-has-benefits-even-those-past-covid-19-infections/5545009001/">USA Today has labeled as “false”</a> the idea that “natural” immunity protects as well as vaccination. The newspaper’s fact-checkers only cited a recent <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/covid-vaccines-offer-five-times-more-protection-immunity-catching-virus-cdc-1644106">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study</a> and did not address earlier <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital">Israeli research</a> suggesting the exact opposite. When fact-checkers show limited views of the facts in a scientific debate, they can leave citizens with the impression that the science is settled when it really may not be.</p>
<p>Exaggerating the certainty of science can undermine public trust in science and journalism. When <a href="https://factcheck.afp.com/coronavirus-protection-masks-hawked-misleading-video-ad-facebook">fact checks</a> about masking <a href="https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/15/fact-check-covid-19-tests-real-and-masks-do-work/3824781001/">flip-flopped</a> in 2020, some people wondered whether the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/opinion/omicron-covid-testing-cdc.html">experts behind the fact checks were being genuine</a>. </p>
<p>Also lost in worries about the dangers of misinformation is the reality that factually dubious speech can be politically important. A screed against the MMR vaccine might repeat a discredited claim about immunization causing autism, but it also contains <a href="https://upittpress.org/books/9780822966906/">vital political facts</a>: Some people distrust the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the pharmaceutical industry and resent the amount of control they feel that state health officials wield over them. </p>
<p>Citizens don’t just need to be alerted to potential misinformation. They need to know why other people are skeptical of officials and their facts.</p>
<h2>No winners, no losers</h2>
<p>The problems that Americans face are often too complex for fact-checking. And people’s conflicts run far deeper than a belief in falsehoods. </p>
<p>Maybe it is better to let go, at least a little, of the idea that Americans must occupy a shared reality. The point of political systems is to peaceably resolve conflicts. It may be less important to our democracy that the media focus on factual clarity, and more vital that it helps people to disagree more civilly. </p>
<p>Psychologist Peter Coleman studies how people discuss contentious issues. He has found that those conversations <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2019/07/11/hard-conversations-solve-conflicts">aren’t constructive</a> when participants think of them in terms of truth and falsehood or pro and con positions, which tend to spur feelings of contempt. </p>
<p>Rather, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/27/make-america-talk-again-how-to-bridge-the-partisan-divide">productive discussions</a> about difficult topics happen by encouraging participants to see reality as complex. Simply reading an essay highlighting the contradictions and ambiguities in an issue leads people to argue less and converse more. The focus becomes mutual learning rather than being right. </p>
<p>But it isn’t clear how best to bring Coleman’s findings out of the laboratory and into the world. </p>
<p>I propose that news outlets offer not only fact checks but also “disagreement checks.”</p>
<p>Rather than label the “lab leak” hypothesis or “natural immunity” idea as true or false, disagreement checkers would highlight the complicated sub-issues involved. They would show how the uncertain science looks very different depending on people’s values and level of trust. </p>
<p>Disagreement checks would be less concerned, for instance, with <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-don-lemon-joe-rogan-horse-dewormer-ivermectin">the correctness</a> of calling ivermectin a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/21/joe-rogan-cnn-ivermectin-statement-gupta/">“horse dewormer”</a>. Instead they would focus on exploring why some citizens might favor untested treatments over the vaccine, focusing on reasons other than misinformation.</p>
<p>Maybe some combination of fact-checking and other tools can <a href="https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/the-week-in-fact-checking-these-people-are-trying-to-solve-fake-news/">curb the public’s susceptibility to</a> being misled. But by focusing a little less on the facts and more on the complexities of the problems that divide them, Americans can take one big step back from the abyss, and toward each other.</p>
<p>[<em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/174034/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Taylor Dotson receives funding from the Fulbright Scholar Program.</span></em></p>Fact-checking risks oversimplifying and distorting Americans’ political conflicts, while not actually helping people find ways to work together productively.Taylor Dotson, Associate Professor of Social Science, New Mexico TechLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1735782022-01-03T15:58:40Z2022-01-03T15:58:40ZScientific certainty survival kit: How to push back against skeptics who exploit uncertainty for political gain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/438254/original/file-20211217-13309-zl5c72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=9%2C0%2C6025%2C3999&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It can be difficult to distinguish between the calls of sincere scientists for more research to reach greater certainty, and the politically motivated criticisms of science skeptics. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 175px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/scientific-certainty-survival-kit--how-to-push-back-against-skeptics-who-exploit-uncertainty-for-political-gain" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The mathematician Kurt Gödel was obsessed by the fear that he would die by poisoning. He refused to eat a meal unless it was prepared by his wife, the only person he trusted. When she fell ill and was sent to hospital, <a href="https://www.ias.edu/kurt-g%C3%B6del-life-work-and-legacy">Gödel died of starvation</a>.</p>
<p>His death is sad, but also ironic: The man who discovered that even logical systems are incomplete — that some truths are unprovable — died because he demanded complete proof that his food was safe. He demanded more of his lasagne than he did of logic. </p>
<p>“Don’t eat unless you are 100 per cent certain your food is safe” is a principle that will kill a person as certainly as any poison. So, in the face of uncertainty about our food we take precautions and then we eat — knowing there remains the slimmest chance an unknown enemy has laced our meal with arsenic.</p>
<p>The example of Gödel teaches us a lesson: sometimes the demand for absolute certainty can be dangerous and even deadly. Despite this, demands for absolute or near certainty are a common way for those with a political agenda to undermine science and to delay action. Through our combined experience in science, philosophy and cultural theory, we are acquainted with these attempts to undermine science. We want to help readers figure out how to evaluate their merits or lack thereof. </p>
<h2>A brief history of certainty</h2>
<p>Scientists have amassed abundant evidence that <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm">smoking causes cancer</a>, that the <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/">climate is changing because of humans</a> and that <a href="https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/01/11/vaccines-autism-public-health-expert/">vaccines are safe and effective</a>. But scientists have not proven these results definitively, nor will they ever do so. </p>
<p>Oncology, climate science and epidemiology are not branches of pure mathematics, defined by absolute certainty. Yet it has become something of an industry to disparage the scientific results because they fail to provide certainty equal to 2+2=4. </p>
<p>Some science skeptics say that findings about smoking, global warming and vaccines <a href="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.001.0001/acprof-9780199356102-chapter-10">lack certainty</a> and <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22291183/skeptic-covid-vaccine-climate-change-denial-election-fraud">are therefore unreliable</a>. “What if the science is wrong?” they ask. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-denial-2-0-was-on-full-display-at-cop26-but-there-was-also-pushback-171639">Climate change denial 2.0 was on full display at COP26, but there was also pushback</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This concern can be valid; scientists themselves worry about it. But carried to excess, such criticism often serves political agendas by <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/doubt-is-their-product-9780195300673?cc=ca&lang=en&">persuading people to lose trust in science</a> and <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trend/archive/winter-2021/why-we-must-rebuild-trust-in-science">avoid taking action</a>.</p>
<p>Over 2,000 years ago Aristotle wrote that “<a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html">it is the mark of an educated person to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits</a>.” Scientists have agreed for centuries that it is inappropriate to seek absolute certainty from the empirical sciences. </p>
<p>For example, one of the fathers of modern science, Francis Bacon, wrote in 1620 that his “<em>Novum Organum</em>” — a new method or logic for studying and understanding natural phenomenon — would <a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/bacon-novum-organum#Bacon_0415_82">chart a middle path between the excess of dogmatic certainty and the excess of skeptical doubt</a>. This middle path is marked by increasing degrees of probability achieved by careful observation, skilfully executed tests and the collection of evidence. </p>
<p>To demand perfect certainty from scientists now is to be 400 years behind on one’s reading on scientific methodology.</p>
<h2>A certainty survival kit</h2>
<p>It can be difficult to distinguish between the calls of sincere scientists for more research to reach greater certainty, on the one hand, and the politically motivated criticisms of science skeptics, on the other. But there are some ways to tell the difference: First, we highlight some common tactics employed by science skeptics and, second, we provide questions readers might ask when they encounter doubt about scientific certainty.</p>
<p>One common tactic is the old “correlation does not equal causation” chestnut. This one was <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2011.300292">used by the tobacco industry to challenge the link between smoking and cancer in the 1950s and ‘60s</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A package of cigarettes on a table with one cigarette beside it. The box shows a photograph of a tongue covered in white spots, a form of oral cancer caused primarily by smoking." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438253/original/file-20211217-25-sngx0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In 2001, Canada became the first country to introduce photographic warnings on cigarette packages, which often focus on cancer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Denis Savard</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Smoking is merely correlated with cancer, the tobacco industry and their representatives argued, it didn’t necessarily cause cancer. But these critics left out the fact that the correlation is very strong, smoking precedes cancer and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1898525/pdf/procrsmed00196-0010.pdf">other potential causes are unable to account for this correlation</a>. </p>
<p>In fact, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53010/">the science linking smoking and lung cancer is now quite clear given the decades of research that produced volumes of supporting evidence</a>. This tactic continues to be a mainstay of many science skeptics even though scientists have well-tested abilities to separate simple correlation from cause and effect relationships.</p>
<p>Another tactic argues that science is unable to prove anything positive, that science only tests and ultimately falsifies theories, conjectures and hypotheses. And so, skeptics say, the real work of science is not to establish truths definitively, but to refute falsehoods definitively. If this were true, <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/">scientific claims would always be “underdetermined”</a> — the idea that whatever evidence is available may not be sufficient to determine whether we believe something to be true.</p>
<p>For example, science could never prove true the claim that humans are warming the planet. While science may fall short of complete proof, scientists nevertheless amass <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL096644">such great evidence that they render their conclusions the most rational among the alternatives</a>. </p>
<p>Science has moved past this criticism of underdetermination, which rests on an outdated philosophy of science made popular by Karl Popper early last century, according to which <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#BasiStatFalsConv">science merely falsifies, but never proves</a>. Larry Laudan, a philosopher of science, wrote an influential 1990 essay, “<a href="https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/185722/14_12Laudan.pdf">Demystifying underdetermination</a>,” that shows that this objection to scientific methodology is sloppy and exaggerated. </p>
<p>Scientists can reach conclusions that one explanation is more rational than competing claims, even if scientists cannot prove their conclusions through demonstration. These extensive and varied lines of evidence can collectively lead to positive conclusions and allow us to <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf">know with a high level of certainty that humans are indeed warming the planet</a>.</p>
<h2>Scientists can be the target too</h2>
<p>Another way to drum up uncertainty about what we know is through attacks on scientists. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02741-x">Personal attacks on public health officials during the ongoing pandemic are a prime example</a>. These attacks are often <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1741420">framed more broadly to implicate scientists as untrustworthy, profit-seeking or politically motivated</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Wegener's original black and white schematic showing the Earth's continents locked together like a jigsaw puzzle in the first panel, and spread out into their current configuration in the last." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1011&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1011&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1011&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1271&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1271&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/438248/original/file-20211217-13309-c7f4x4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1271&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alfred Wegener proposed in 1912 that the continents were once joined together into a single landmass and had drifted apart.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:De_Wegener_Kontinente_018.jpg">(Alfred Wegener/Wikimedia)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, consensus among scientists is sometimes touted as no guarantee of truth or, in other words, scientists are sometimes wrong. One well-known example involves the theory of plate tectonics, where the scientific community for several decades largely dismissed the idea proposed by geophysicist Alfred Wegener. This consensus rapidly shifted in the 1960s as <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/plate-tectonics/">evidence mounted in support of continental drift</a>. </p>
<p>While scientists may be using <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/science-top-10-erroneous-results-mistakes">flawed data, suffer from a lack of data or sometimes misinterpret the data that they have</a>, the scientific approach allows for the reconsideration and rethinking of what is known when new evidence arises. While highlighting the occasional scientific mistake can create sensational headlines and reduce trust in scientists, the reality is that science is transparent about its mistakes and generally self-correcting when these issues arise. This is a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/how-science-changes/266145/">feature of science, not a bug</a>.</p>
<h2>Being mindful about certainty</h2>
<p>When reading critiques that inflate the uncertainty of science, we suggest asking the following questions to determine whether the critique is being made in the interest of advancing science or procuring public health, or whether it is being made by someone with a hidden agenda:</p>
<ol>
<li> Who is making the argument? What are their credentials?</li>
<li> Whose interests are served by the argument?</li>
<li> Is the critique of science selective or focused only on science that runs against the interests represented by the speaker? </li>
<li> Does the argument involve any self-critique?</li>
<li> Is the speaker doubting the existence of the problem? Or asking for delay in action until certainty is obtained? Who stands to benefit from this delay?</li>
<li> Does the speaker require a high level of certainty on the one hand, but not on the other? For instance, if the argument is that the safety of a vaccine is not sufficiently certain, what makes the argument against its safety sufficient? </li>
<li> Has the argument made clear how much uncertainty there is? Has the speaker specified a threshold at which point they would feel certain enough to act?</li>
</ol>
<p>A friend of ours recently encountered a vaccine skeptic who articulated their problem this way: “I don’t know what’s in it.” In fact, we do know what is in vaccines, as much as we can know for certain what is in anything else we put in our bodies. The same question can be fruitfully asked of any argument we put in our minds: “Am I sure I know what’s in it?”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173578/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Frost receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marguerite Xenopoulos receives funding from Canada Research Chairs and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. She is Editor-in-Chief of JGR: Biogeosciences.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Epp is affiliated with the NDP as a member and volunteer</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Hickson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Skeptics may make demands for absolute certainty to undermine science and delay action. Critiques may not be in the interest of advancing science and public health, but by someone with an agenda.Paul Frost, David Schindler Professor of Aquatic Science, Trent UniversityMarguerite Xenopoulos, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Global Change of Freshwater Ecosystems, Trent UniversityMichael Epp, Associate Professor of Cultural Studies, Trent UniversityMichael Hickson, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1732122021-12-15T13:29:27Z2021-12-15T13:29:27ZCOVID-19 vaccines for children: How parents are influenced by misinformation, and how they can counter it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436843/original/file-20211210-68670-uw0s95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=43%2C0%2C5699%2C3828&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Health care providers are just one trusted source of information for parents on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for children.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/doctor-explaining-report-on-tablet-computer-to-royalty-free-image/961221674?adppopup=true"> Cavan Images/Cavan via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s1102-PediatricCOVID-19Vaccine.html">COVID-19 vaccines became available</a> for children ages 5 to 11 in early November 2021, many families have been lining up to get their school-age kids vaccinated prior to holiday travel and gatherings.</p>
<p>As of Dec. 14, <a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demographics-trends">5.6 million U.S. children ages 5 to 11</a> – or about 19% of this age group – have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. And 2.9 million, or about 10% of this age group, are fully vaccinated. </p>
<p>However, the <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/press-release/following-an-early-period-of-high-demand-vaccination-for-children-ages-5-11-has-significantly-slowed/">pace has begun to slow</a>. Vaccination rates in this age group <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/an-update-on-vaccine-roll-out-for-5-11-year-olds-in-the-u-s/">vary widely across the country</a>, and the U.S. is still far from reaching a threshold that would help keep COVID-19 infections in check. </p>
<p>We are a team of <a href="https://www.pediatrics.pitt.edu/people/maya-indira-ragavan-md-mph-ms">medical</a> and <a href="https://publichealth.pitt.edu/home/directory/jaime-sidani">public health</a> professionals at the University of Pittsburgh. We have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.03.003">extensive experience</a> researching <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-wHMfaIAAAAJ&hl=en">vaccine misinformation on social media</a> and <a href="https://www.pediatrics.pitt.edu/about-us/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/community-and-culture/pittsburgh-community-vaccine">working with community partners</a> to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.08.021">address vaccine hesitancy</a>, counter misinformation and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=8RBqepAAAAAJ&cstart=20&pagesize=80&citation_for_view=8RBqepAAAAAJ:TQgYirikUcIC">promote vaccine equity</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Woman with a frustrated expression looking at her smartphone while sitting on couch at home." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436845/original/file-20211210-188518-9l4g2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436845/original/file-20211210-188518-9l4g2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436845/original/file-20211210-188518-9l4g2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436845/original/file-20211210-188518-9l4g2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436845/original/file-20211210-188518-9l4g2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436845/original/file-20211210-188518-9l4g2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436845/original/file-20211210-188518-9l4g2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When parents turn to social media to find information about COVID-19 vaccinations for children, they can become easy targets for misinformation spread by anti-vaccine activists.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/frustrated-and-depressed-young-brunette-woman-is-royalty-free-image/1329809753?adppopup=true">Povozniuk/iStock/Getty Images Plus via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Through this work, we have seen and studied the ways that anti-vaccine activists on social media target vulnerable parents who are trying to navigate the challenges of digesting health information to make appropriate choices for their children.</p>
<h2>Social media and vaccine misinformation</h2>
<p>Anti-vaccine activists are a small but vocal group. According to research conducted by the non-profit Center for Countering Digital Hate, <a href="https://www.counterhate.com/disinformationdozen">just 12 social media accounts</a> – the “disinformation dozen” – are <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes">behind the majority</a> of anti-vaccine posts on Facebook. Studies also show that only <a href="https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0396">about 2% of parents</a> reject all vaccines for their children. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-007609">A larger group</a>, or about 20% of parents, can more accurately be described as vaccine hesitant, which means they are undecided about having their children receive vaccines <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html">as recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-october-2021/">With regard to COVID-19 vaccines specifically</a>, as of October 2021, about one-third of parents with children ages 5 to 11 years said they would get their child vaccinated right away. Another one-third said they would wait to see how the vaccine is working, and the last one-third said they would definitely not get their child vaccinated. </p>
<p>It can be difficult for parents to sort through the large amount of information available about COVID-19 vaccines – both true and untrue. In their search for answers, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2019.09.009">some parents turn to social media platforms</a>. The problem is, these parents are often targeted by anti-vaccine activists who are better organized and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1">more skilled at tailoring their messages</a> to the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.03.003">varied concerns of people who are vaccine hesitant</a> in comparison to pro-vaccine activists. </p>
<p>Social media, in particular, has been <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30565-X">a primary vehicle</a> for the spread of misinformation. Although sometimes misinformation is blatantly false, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.009">other times it is more like a game of telephone</a>. A kernel of truth gets modified slightly as it is retold, which ends up becoming something untrue. Unfortunately, exposure to COVID-19 misinformation has been shown to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1">reduce people’s intent to get vaccinated</a>.</p>
<h2>Addressing parents’ vaccine concerns</h2>
<p>So how can pediatricians and other health care professionals empower parents to feel confident in the choice to get their children vaccinated for COVID-19? </p>
<p>The answer may lie in working with communities to promote the vaccine as trustworthy instead of simply asking communities to trust it. We are part of the Pittsburgh Community Vaccine Collaborative, which is a community-academic partnership that seeks to ensure equitable access to the COVID-19 vaccines. Through that effort, we have focused on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399211029954">building trustworthiness of the vaccines</a> and of the providers and health systems that are offering the vaccines in their communities. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/13/amid-coronavirus-threat-americans-generally-have-a-high-level-of-trust-in-medical-doctors/">Health care providers are a trusted source of information</a> for COVID-19 vaccine information, but they are not the only sources. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2017.1394533">Research has found</a> that it is important to lean on the expertise and voices of community partners, community health workers and religious leaders.</p>
<p>Our research suggests that pediatricians and public health professionals <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.08.021">can effectively use social media</a> to promote vaccination and provide families with reputable scientific information to address their questions and concerns. Results of a survey that was <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2019.09.009">recently published in Academic Pediatrics</a> found that 96% of parents used social media. Of those, 68% reported using it for health information.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://kidspluspgh.com/">a pediatric group</a> we partner with <a href="https://people.com/human-interest/dr-todd-wolynn-takes-on-anti-vaxxers-science-singing-silly/">uses comedy combined with information</a> to combat myths and answer questions about the COVID-19 vaccines. </p>
<iframe src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed/v2/6940691573801749765?lang=en-US" style="border:0;width:100%;min-height:825px;" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Social media is also an effective way to reach adolescents who can decide for themselves if they want <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549211048784">to get a COVID-19 vaccine</a> without their parents’ consent (<a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90671596/can-teens-get-vaccinated-without-their-parents-consent-it-depends-on-where-they-live">in some cities and states</a>). Adolescents may also be able to influence their parents. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00099228211046499">Research shows</a> that parents who report high COVID-19 vaccine intention for themselves also report high COVID-19 vaccine intention for their children. Therefore, talking about vaccines as a family may be helpful in combating misinformation around the COVID-19 vaccine. In addition, parents who have had their children vaccinated can use social media to share their experiences and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109979">make it feel more normal</a> and accepted among their peers.</p>
<p>We have also learned that promoting <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/news-and-media-literacy/what-is-media-literacy-and-why-is-it-important">media literacy</a>, which encourages people to question the media information they come into contact with, can empower parents to sift through the <a href="https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic">“infodemic”</a> of COVID-19 vaccine information. While social media platforms have announced policies of removing vaccine misinformation, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306288">research suggests</a> this is not always effective at reducing the influence of such misinformation. Learning how to find the source of a piece of information and thinking about who are the intended targets may help people determine whether the information is true or distorted.</p>
<h2>Next steps</h2>
<p>Addressing COVID-19 vaccine misinformation can feel overwhelming. The <a href="https://www.aap.org/en/">American Academy of Pediatrics</a> has <a href="https://healthychildren.org/English/tips-tools/ask-the-pediatrician/Pages/when-can-children-get-the-COVID-19-vaccine.aspx">helpful information for parents</a> to support making decisions around the COVID-19 vaccine. Parents can also have conversations with their children about media literacy and evaluating information. And they can talk to their children – especially adolescent-age children – about how getting the COVID-19 vaccine can protect them and others. </p>
<p>Increasing COVID-19 vaccine rates for children and young people is important to promote their health and wellness, as well as to move closer to ending the pandemic. </p>
<p>[<em>Too busy to read another daily email?</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-toobusy">Get one of The Conversation’s curated weekly newsletters</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173212/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jaime Sidani receives funding from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, the American Heart Association, and the PittCATS Clinical Scholars program, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beth Hoffman receives funding from The Richard King Mellon Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maya Ragavan receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (through an institutional KL2) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. </span></em></p>Pediatricians and other health care providers can take some concrete steps toward building trust and counteracting anti-vaccination misinformation.Jaime Sidani, Assistant Professor of Public Health, University of PittsburghBeth Hoffman, Postdoctoral Associate in Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, University of PittsburghMaya Ragavan, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of PittsburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1724112021-11-26T03:59:33Z2021-11-26T03:59:33ZCOVID death data can be shared to make it look like vaccines don’t work, or worse – but that’s not the whole picture<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434067/original/file-20211126-21-10wvpiy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C91%2C5496%2C3283&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://photos-cdn.aap.com.au/Image/20211125001600044798?path=/aap_dev14/device/imagearc/2021/11-25/86/7a/75/aapimage-7ik9b1vqytg1ddce78ql_layout.jpg">Julian Stratenschulte/dpa via AP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Social media posts commenting on data from <a href="https://twitter.com/CraigKellyMP/status/1410774446114172929">the UK</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/mydocfrank/posts/2584678751677451">Israel</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/mydocfrank/posts/2599181006893892">South Africa</a>, among others, claim deaths from COVID (<a href="https://twitter.com/HettingClaus/status/1462387732739670018">or all deaths</a>) are now higher in vaccinated than unvaccinated citizens. Others make the more moderate claim <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/25/factcheck-clive-palmer-uses-12-minute-radio-interview-to-make-false-covid-claims">vaccines do nothing</a> to prevent death from COVID. </p>
<p>These reports appear intimidating, because they usually utilise real data or statistics. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variant-variant-of-concern-20201201">Many of the raw numbers presented</a> are indeed correct, though not complete. </p>
<p>But people – including <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/25/factcheck-clive-palmer-uses-12-minute-radio-interview-to-make-false-covid-claims">Clive Palmer</a> who said this week vaccines don’t work and <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/health-regulator-moves-to-take-on-craig-kelly-over-misleading-vaccine-texts-20210910-p58qnl.html">Craig Kelly</a> who spread vaccine misinformation via text message – should ask whether they have understood the context, analysed the data properly and interpreted the results accurately.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-vaccinated-people-are-not-just-as-infectious-as-unvaccinated-people-if-they-get-covid-171302">No, vaccinated people are not 'just as infectious' as unvaccinated people if they get COVID</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What counts as ‘vaccinated’?</h2>
<p>When comparing studies or statistics, a lot hinges on how data providers define “vaccinated”. </p>
<p>Some vaccines are single-dose, others are double-dose regimens. Most jurisdictions define “fully vaccinated” as two weeks after the last required dose, but some social media posts like <a href="https://archive.md/FzsHg%22%22">this one</a> lump together anyone who has had any dose. </p>
<p>Some jurisdictions track patients in the interim period, others more crudely lump them with the partially vaccinated. We also have to compare patients who have received different vaccines, or mixed vaccine doses. Soon we will have to track those who have received booster shots. </p>
<p>To complicate things further, not all jurisdictions publish the necessary level of detail. Thankfully, we do have some good data at our fingertips: NSW <a href="https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/stats-nsw.aspx">is on track</a> to become one of the most <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations">highly vaccinated jurisdictions</a> in the world, and has <a href="https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports.aspx">published</a> very detailed data with <a href="https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/Pages/20211108_01.aspx">comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated cases</a> that show vaccination is highly effective.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/now-everyones-a-statistician-heres-what-armchair-covid-experts-are-getting-wrong-144494">Now everyone's a statistician. Here's what armchair COVID experts are getting wrong</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Not all numbers are equal</h2>
<p>Focusing on an <a href="https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/absolute-value.html">absolute number</a> – how far it is from zero, regardless of its relative value in the real world – can be very misleading. </p>
<p>Let’s say 95% of <a href="https://stat.data.abs.gov.au/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ERP_QUARTERLY">NSW’s entire population</a> of approximately 8,000,000 was fully vaccinated. That’s 7.6 million people. Imagine 0.05% of fully vaccinated people needed to be hospitalised with COVID. That’s just shy of 4,000 people.</p>
<p>Let’s also say 1% of the remaining 400,000 unvaccinated people were hospitalised with COVID. That’s 4,000 people.</p>
<p>So the absolute number of hospitalised vaccinated people would be similar to the hospitalised unvaccinated people.</p>
<p>But, less than 0.05% of fully vaccinated people are in hospital, compared to 1% of unvaccinated people – that’s 20 times higher!</p>
<p>The same scenario could be applied to absolute numbers of COVID deaths.</p>
<p>Another way to explain this relates to what’s known as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/08/31/covid-israel-hospitalization-rates-simpsons-paradox/">Simpon’s paradox</a>: when a very <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-06/coronacheck-israel-higher-numbers-vaccinated-people-infected/100353540">large proportion of the population is vaccinated</a>, it is quite likely that a larger absolute number of cases will be vaccinated rather than unvaccinated. To compare effects, one must instead <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination">focus on the rates of cases and death</a> from COVID. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1457456574566440961"}"></div></p>
<h2>COVID doesn’t affect everyone in the same way</h2>
<p>COVID hospitalisation and death rates are skewed sharply by <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19741-6">sex</a>, pre-existing health conditions like <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243600">metabolic syndrome</a>, and <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259">age</a>. So, men are more likely to die than women and the same is true for older people and those with other health problems.</p>
<p>And almost all countries vaccinated the most at-risk populations first. Some, like the elderly, already displayed higher death rates. Given the most likely to die are the first vaccinated, then we may see more deaths in the group vaccinated first. The vaccine will have lessened the deaths, but at-risk people were always more likely to die. </p>
<p>To truly discern the effect of the vaccine, then, one has to compare rates across matched levels of risk, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/jun/27/why-most-people-who-now-die-with-covid-have-been-vaccinated">especially age</a>. A very good <a href="https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated">analysis matches different levels of age risk on the Israeli data</a> and shows that even though the absolute number of vaccinated hospitalised cases was more than the unvaccinated hospitalisations, the Pfizer vaccine still showed good effectiveness against severe disease.</p>
<p>The two charts below, prepared from figures via <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus">Our World in Data</a>, show the cases, deaths, and vaccinations for <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/israel">Israel</a> and <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/united-kingdom">the UK</a> across the entire pandemic. Both experienced three waves, with the third being after the start of vaccinations. Both showed dramatically fewer deaths in the third wave, even though case numbers were high (for <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2021-09-09/covid-19-israel-vaccination-high-case-rates-lessons-australia/100442304">Israel, the highest of the three waves</a>).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434064/original/file-20211126-17-1iylx2l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="graph showing covid vaccinations and death" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434064/original/file-20211126-17-1iylx2l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434064/original/file-20211126-17-1iylx2l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434064/original/file-20211126-17-1iylx2l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434064/original/file-20211126-17-1iylx2l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434064/original/file-20211126-17-1iylx2l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434064/original/file-20211126-17-1iylx2l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434064/original/file-20211126-17-1iylx2l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Israel.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://ourworldindata.org/">Author compiled from ourworldindata.org</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434063/original/file-20211126-25-18ybfnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="graph showing covid vaccinations and death" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434063/original/file-20211126-25-18ybfnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434063/original/file-20211126-25-18ybfnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434063/original/file-20211126-25-18ybfnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434063/original/file-20211126-25-18ybfnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434063/original/file-20211126-25-18ybfnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434063/original/file-20211126-25-18ybfnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434063/original/file-20211126-25-18ybfnt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://ourworldindata.org/">Author compiled from ourworldindata.org</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some posts <a href="https://twitter.com/HettingClaus/status/1462387732739670018">like this one</a> claim to show “vaccine-caused mortality” but ignore <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland">uneven risk across the population</a>. The rates are higher for unvaccinated people in all other age groups (conveniently omitted from the chart) and, more importantly, the data report states: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>For the 10–59 age group, the vaccinated population will on average be older than the unvaccinated population … As mortality rates are higher for older people, this will increase the mortality rates for the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Making sense of all the numbers</h2>
<p>We know there are “<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51291.How_to_Lie_with_Statistics">lies, damned lies, and statistics</a>”. And yet, some spurious social media claims rely on real numbers. </p>
<p>So the question isn’t: should you believe the statistics? Rather: which statistics should you believe? The best advice is to step back and look at the bigger picture. </p>
<p>When this pandemic winds down, there could be a day when there is only one hospitalised COVID patient. If that patient were to be vaccinated, would we say that 100% of hospitalised patients are vaccinated, and therefore the vaccines don’t work? </p>
<p>We need to look at the numbers over the whole course of the pandemic, or even over a single wave of infection, to see things more clearly. A single set of numbers does not show the whole picture.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-are-covid-cases-in-india-decreasing-despite-the-low-double-vaccination-rate-171736">Why are COVID cases in India decreasing, despite the low double vaccination rate?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172411/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacques Raubenheimer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Clive Palmer says vaccines don’t work and Craig Kelly is among those misinterpreting statistics to suggest COVID vaccines are causing more deaths overseas.Jacques Raubenheimer, Senior Research Fellow, Biostatistics, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1716482021-11-12T00:38:32Z2021-11-12T00:38:32ZThe fault in our stars: Aaron Rodgers reminds us why celebrity shouldn’t trump science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431590/original/file-20211111-27-13d17uz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C13%2C2815%2C1971&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers implied he was vaccinated against COVID-19 when he was not, and made statements about the vaccines based on misinformation.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Rick Scuteri) </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>They say never meet your heroes. Take football hero Aaron Rodgers. The Green Bay Packers quarterback is undeniably great at playing football. He has won <a href="https://www.si.com/college/cal/news/aaron-rodgers-wins-third-mvp">Most Valuable Player</a> of the National Football League (NFL) three times. His team <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aaron-Rodgers">won the Superbowl</a> in 2011 and he holds numerous records.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://theconversation.com/ca/topics/vaccine-confidence-in-canada-107061">Click here for more articles in our series about vaccine confidence.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But it’s what’s happening above the shoulder pads that has recently received attention: <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/article-aaron-rodgers-sought-treatments-instead-of-covid-19-vaccine/">After insinuating that he was protected against COVID-19</a>, it turns out that he never received a vaccine. And he has recently tested positive for COVID-19. </p>
<h2>Celebrity platforms</h2>
<p>As a doctor, I am not here to take pleasure in his misfortune or say, “We told you so,” even if getting vaccinated is <a href="https://laist.com/news/health/health-experts-urge-people-to-get-vaccinated-as-covid-cases-continue-to-climb">exactly what medical experts have recommended as the best protection against COVID-19</a>. I am not here to challenge Rodgers’ freedom of speech. </p>
<p>I am here to say that my colleagues and I are burned out by the pandemic’s effects on an already-broken system and that misinformation from Rodgers and others with a celebrity platform or a large following is harmful. </p>
<p>Misinformation emboldens those who believe falsehoods and has led to <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-as-a-doctor-promoting-vaccination-i-live-in-fear/">physical violence against doctors</a>, <a href="https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2021/02/24/conspiracists-fantasizing-henry-execution/">death threats against</a> public health officials and <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-hospital-protests-canada-1.6173437">protesters blocking cancer patients</a> from entering hospitals.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nicki-minajs-covid-19-vaccine-tweet-about-swollen-testicles-signals-the-dangers-of-celebrity-misinformation-and-fandom-168242">Nicki Minaj’s COVID-19 vaccine tweet about swollen testicles signals the dangers of celebrity misinformation and fandom</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Since the scientific triumph of safe and effective vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus I have had many discussions with patients. The ones that start with “I’m not an anti-vaxxer” inevitably lead to vaccine denial. Similarly, Rodgers defends his celebrity credibility as someone who is “<a href="https://www.si.com/college/cal/news/aaron-rodgers-responds-to-critics">not some sort of anti-vaxx flat Earther. I am somebody who’s a critical thinker</a>” who “did his own research.” </p>
<p>Yet he has amplified dangerous and disproven myths about the COVID-19 vaccine. </p>
<h2>Myth-busting Rodgers’ statements</h2>
<p>Rodgers said that vaccines <a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article255644891.html">could impact fertility</a>; there is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02807-9">neither proof nor plausibility</a> to this statement. </p>
<p>He said he’s “allergic to an ingredient” in both the Pfizer and Moderna products, despite no mention of having these <a href="http://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22255">rare allergies</a> confirmed by an allergist. </p>
<p>He said “we don’t know a whole lot about” the vaccine although after <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/">seven billion doses</a> we know a lot. And so far the evidence is clear: the vaccine is effective against a <a href="https://coronavirus.jhu.edu">virus that has killed over five million people globally and more than 750,000 in Rodgers’ America</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers leaving the field giving the No. 1 sign, with photographers behind him" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431591/original/file-20211111-17-kb64ra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431591/original/file-20211111-17-kb64ra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431591/original/file-20211111-17-kb64ra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431591/original/file-20211111-17-kb64ra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431591/original/file-20211111-17-kb64ra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431591/original/file-20211111-17-kb64ra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431591/original/file-20211111-17-kb64ra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Aaron Rodgers was fined US$14,650 by the NFL for violating the league’s COVID-19 protocol.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Rodgers also repeats other common unfounded anti-vaccine arguments in saying, “this idea that it’s the pandemic of the unvaccinated is just a total lie … If the vaccine is so great, then how come people are still getting COVID and spreading COVID?” </p>
<p>Studies show that unvaccinated people <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html">are more likely to get COVID-19</a>. They’re more likely to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260">spread COVID-19</a> (the research awaiting peer review). And are more likely to get really sick and die from COVID-19. The vaccine is not perfect, but it leads to <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w">better protection than “natural immunity.”</a> Avoiding vaccination because some vaccinated people get sick is like saying that impaired driving laws are useless because some sober drivers still have car accidents.</p>
<p>Rodgers believes strongly in “bodily autonomy.” Others care about that too. Like people most at risk of COVID-19, such as those with cancer or autoimmune diseases that both increase their risk of infection while also diminishing their ability make antibodies after immunization. Know who else cares? Parents like me with young children who are not yet eligible to get the vaccine. </p>
<p>Rodgers also dogwhistles his followers in citing <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aaron-rodgers-packers-covid-vaccine-ivermectin-woke-mob/">ivermectin and homeopathy</a>. Ivermectin <a href="https://theconversation.com/ivermectin-whether-formulated-for-humans-or-horses-is-not-a-treatment-for-covid-19-167340">has not been shown in studies</a> to improve COVID-19 outcomes and a rare publication that did show an effect was <a href="https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/02/ivermectin-covid-19-study-retracted-authors-blame-file-mixup/">retracted because the authors fabricated trial participants</a> that didn’t exist. <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.15252%2Fembr.201947761">Homeopathy has not proven better than placebo</a> for any condition. </p>
<p>Further to his anti-science and anti-vaccine statements, Rodgers has shown anti-mask behaviour, appearing without facial covering indoors at work and in the community, endangering himself and others. The NFL <a href="https://www.nfl.com/news/packers-fined-300k-aaron-rodgers-allen-lazard-fined-14k-for-violation-of-covid-p">fined Rodgers US$14,650</a>, or 0.04 per cent of his US$33.5 million salary. </p>
<h2>Science-informed celebrities</h2>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1377251952304750593"}"></div></p>
<p>I get that vaccination is an emotional subject; if the battle were about facts then anti-vaccine sentiments would have been eradicated years ago like smallpox. Trust is vitally important. And for every Aaron Rodgers who is free to speak untruths, we need more science-informed celebrities like <a href="https://twitter.com/VancityReynolds/status/1377251952304750593?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1377251952304750593%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzfeed.com%2Fmorgansloss1%2Fcelebrities-for-covid-vaccine-and-against-it">Ryan Reynolds</a>, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CN3FEvRLG3z/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=39439f39-cda4-4ab6-a9c6-56fc71d0b22b">Mindy Kaling</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande/status/1421890761939984388?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1421890761939984388%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzfeed.com%2Fmorgansloss1%2Fcelebrities-for-covid-vaccine-and-against-it">Ariana Grande</a>, <a href="https://people.com/movies/tyler-perry-sets-up-covid-vaccination-site-studio-staff-crew-250-vaccinated/">Tyler Perry</a> and <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/21/fact-check-dolly-parton-donated-modernas-covid-19-vaccine-studies/6373339002/">Dolly Parton, who also helped fund Moderna vaccine research</a>. </p>
<p>Historically, <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/05/03/988756973/cant-help-falling-in-love-with-a-vaccine-how-polio-campaign-beat-vaccine-hesitan">Elvis Presley, Sammy Davis Jr., Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald</a> were critical in instilling trust in the government’s vaccine rollout when polio vaccine hesitancy was 50 per cent.</p>
<p>So when it comes to meeting your heroes, maybe it’s a good thing. Rather than supporting the view that they are untouchable stars up high, they remind us that we are all human and susceptible to viruses and viral misinformation alike.</p>
<p><em>Do you have a question about COVID-19 vaccines? Email us at <a href="mailto:ca-vaccination@theconversation.com">ca-vaccination@theconversation.com</a> and vaccine experts will answer questions in upcoming articles.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171648/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eric Cadesky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>NFL star Aaron Rodgers has amplified dangerous and disproven myths about the COVID-19 vaccine. Here’s why his statements are not only untrue, but also harmful because they spread misinformation.Eric Cadesky, Clinical Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1705112021-11-10T16:18:43Z2021-11-10T16:18:43ZHow an online quiz became the best tool to convince 18- to 30-year-olds to get the COVID-19 vaccine<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430902/original/file-20211108-23-1wszpkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=29%2C14%2C1355%2C668&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The "Which Virus Are You" website was a fun and informative way to talk to young people about the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Marion Cossin)</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A lot of false information is spread on social media, which means that using social media to provide reliable scientific data on COVID-19 is not an easy task. The danger is all the greater for young people, who get a lot of their information from social media. </p>
<p>People aged 18 to 29 are among the least vaccinated in Québec. As of Sept. 17, <a href="https://mobile.inspq.qc.ca/sites/default/files/covid/vaccination/vigie-vaccination-20210917.pdf">72.9 per cent</a> had received two doses, compared to 89 per cent of 50- to 59-year-olds and 73.8 per cent of 12- to 17-year-olds. Many are concerned about vaccination.</p>
<p>To respond to this group’s unease, we wanted to find an effective tool we could use to reach them and answer their questions.</p>
<p>So, we created the “<a href="https://www.quelvirusestu.com/home-page">Which Virus Are You</a>” website, which explains COVID-19 in an interactive and entertaining way with the help of experts. It took off and became very popular within weeks after being launched. Here’s how it all started.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410911/original/file-20210712-19-geybnm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://theconversation.com/ca/topics/vaccine-confidence-in-canada-107061">Click here for more articles in our series about vaccine confidence.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When Québec’s research agency Fonds de Recherche du Québec launched a call for projects <a href="https://frq.gouv.qc.ca/jeunes-covid/">“Jeunes dans la lutte contre la Covid-19” (Youth fighting COVID-19</a>, we, a group of science communicators, thought about submitting an idea right away. The goal of the competition was to help students create innovative and creative digital communication projects that would address the COVID-19 concerns of people between 18 and 30.</p>
<p>Before the call went out for projects, our small team of PhD students had already had some science communication projects under out belt, including <a href="https://www.comsciconqc.com/">ComSciCon-QC</a>. So, the ideas started flowing right away. </p>
<p>We quickly saw that while there were already many information sources about COVID-19, what was missing was a tool that made information attractive to young people, one that would make it possible for them to exchange and share ideas. </p>
<h2>Two-way communication</h2>
<p>From the outset we wanted to “think interactive,” to get out of the straitjacket of the printed word and traditional reading, and actively involve the user. The other principle that was important to us was to have two-way communication: to listen, and not just provide information. We felt that traditional communication approaches around COVID-19 lacked reciprocity.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
À lire aussi :
<a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy-can-be-overcome-through-relatable-stories-and-accessible-information-169221">COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can be overcome through relatable stories and accessible information</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Yet how do you get young people to share their feelings without generating an unmanageable amount of data? We knew an open forum would require hours of time to moderate and could potentially open the door to abuse. Direct virtual interaction with experts could only be sporadic and limited.</p>
<p>After a few hours of brainstorming, we came up with the idea of a multiple choice quiz. Quizzes are entertaining and can be fun. Most of us like to test our knowledge and share our opinions. It’s hard to resist a quiz like “Which Disney princess are you?” or “Which Hogwarts house do you belong to?”</p>
<h2>Four virus avatars</h2>
<p>The plan was clear: to design a question-and-answer quiz that would assign each user a “virus avatar” that represented their feelings about the COVID-19 pandemic. The next challenge was to build characters that represented the diversity of people taking the quiz while avoiding being judgmental. After doing preliminary research in media reports, and thinking about our own experiences and those of our family and friends, we came up with four “pandemic behaviours” that would be represented by our avatars: the super-informed, the worried, the skeptic and the detached.</p>
<p>In addition to the quiz, we also had to provide quality information to our audience. To do this, we needed the help of scientific experts on the subjects we wanted to cover. Under the leadership of <a href="https://www.chumontreal.qc.ca/en/crchum/researchers/nathalie-grandvaux">Nathalie Grandvaux</a>, director of the Host Response to Viral Infections Laboratory at the CHUM hospital’s research centre, our team of experts wrote the material and provided us with reliable up-to-date sources.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
À lire aussi :
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-9-psychological-barriers-that-lead-to-covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy-and-refusal-168643">The 9 psychological barriers that lead to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and refusal</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It took a lot of work to synthesize and popularize this information to create accessible infographics. We then handed the material over to Impakt Scientifik to design the <a href="https://www.quelvirusestu.com/tell-me-more">10 infographics</a>. For each of the avatars presented at the end of the quiz, we provide three fact sheets to answer users’ questions. The idea was to use the quiz as a fun tool to lure young people to the site, then suggest that they learn more by exploring the rest of the content.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A cartoon character in glasses and reading." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430904/original/file-20211108-23-1vwxq1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430904/original/file-20211108-23-1vwxq1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430904/original/file-20211108-23-1vwxq1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430904/original/file-20211108-23-1vwxq1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430904/original/file-20211108-23-1vwxq1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430904/original/file-20211108-23-1vwxq1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/430904/original/file-20211108-23-1vwxq1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The super-informed individual is always on the lookout for additional reliable information.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Marion Cossin)</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Opening the dialogue on vaccination</h2>
<p>We launched the website on July 16 and set up a social media strategy to reach a wide audience of young people who would have very different opinions than our own. To do so, we had to know their codes and the tools they were using. We were very active on our social networks all summer, posting every day. We received more comments than we were expecting on our posts.</p>
<p>The posts generated over 20,000 interactions (reactions, shares and comments), with some users questioning our content and others jumping in to defend it. The comments we got on the Facebook page were more aggressive or based on false information from dubious sources, which meant we had to spend time moderating them.</p>
<p>The platform allowed conversations about vaccines to happen between individuals with opposing views. It also allowed information to be shared between populations that do not generally interact. That convinced us we had chosen the right approach.</p>
<h2>A formula that works</h2>
<p>To date, our project has reached over 265,000 people through a combination of social networks (Twitter, Instagram and Facebook) and our website. The majority of users were between the ages of 18 and 34 and located in Québec, but our geographic reach was very wide and included other Canadian provinces, Europe and French-speaking Africa. We also got very positive feedback from science communication professionals. Some important institutions offered to help spread the word about our project.</p>
<p>While access to scientific information is an essential condition to get people to adopt public health behaviours, misinformation is rampant on social networks and confuses people. So it is essential to provide quality scientific information in an accessible and attractive format. In this way, we can stimulate young people’s interest in science and reduce the distance that still exists between experts and the public.</p>
<p>Important messages will only get across if you create a climate of trust and mutual listening, giving young people the tools they need to make good decisions and become the citizens of tomorrow’s society. The question that remains is how to encourage scientists to use these new forms of communication and give them the tools they need to do so.</p>
<p><em>Alexandra Gellé, a chemistry student at McGill University, and Émilie Dubois, founder <a href="https://www.impaktsci.co/">IMPAKT Scientifik</a>, contributed to this project.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><em>Do you have a question about COVID-19 vaccines? Email us at <a href="mailto:ca-vaccination@theconversation.com">ca-vaccination@theconversation.com</a> and vaccine experts will answer questions in upcoming articles.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/170511/count.gif" alt="La Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marion Cossin received funding from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec for her PhD and for the "Which Virus Are You" project.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexia Ostrolenk received funding from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec for her PhD and for the "Which Virus Are You" project.. </span></em></p>To convince 18- to 30-year-olds to get vaccinated, three doctoral students designed an innovative, fun, non-judgmental quiz.Marion Cossin, Étudiante au doctorat et ingénieure de recherche en cirque au Centre de recherche d’innovation et de transfert en Art du Cirque (CRITAC), Université de MontréalAlexia Ostrolenk, Candidate au PhD en Sciences Psychiatriques / Communicatrice Scientifique, Université de MontréalLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1648382021-11-02T12:27:57Z2021-11-02T12:27:57ZFacebook has a misinformation problem, and is blocking access to data about how much there is and who is affected<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429644/original/file-20211101-25-1w20nhd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5039%2C3356&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How big of a problem is misinformation on social media? Without key data, the picture is blurry.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-illustration-photo-facebook-logos-both-in-dark-and-news-photo/1212829323">Anadolu Agency via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Leaked internal documents suggest Facebook – which recently renamed itself Meta – is <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/26/tech/facebook-covid-vaccine-misinformation/index.html">doing far worse than it claims</a> at minimizing COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on the Facebook social media platform. </p>
<p>Online misinformation about the virus and vaccines is a major concern. In one study, survey respondents who got some or all of their news from Facebook were significantly <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/27/people-are-more-anti-vaccine-if-they-get-their-covid-19-news-facebook-rather-than-fox-news-new-data-shows/">more likely to resist the COVID-19 vaccine</a> than those who got their news from mainstream media sources.</p>
<p>As a researcher who <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1lvJXKQAAAAJ&hl=en">studies social and civic media</a>, I believe it’s critically important to understand how misinformation spreads online. But this is easier said than done. Simply counting instances of misinformation found on a social media platform leaves two key questions unanswered: How likely are users to encounter misinformation, and are certain users especially likely to be affected by misinformation? These questions are the denominator problem and the distribution problem.</p>
<p>The COVID-19 misinformation study, “<a href="https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/facebook_threat_health/">Facebook’s Algorithm: a Major Threat to Public Health</a>”, published by public interest advocacy group Avaaz in August 2020, reported that sources that frequently shared health misinformation — 82 websites and 42 Facebook pages — had an estimated total reach of 3.8 billion views in a year.</p>
<p>At first glance, that’s a stunningly large number. But it’s important to remember that this is the <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerator">numerator</a>. To understand what 3.8 billion views in a year means, you also have to calculate the <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denominator">denominator</a>. The numerator is the part of a fraction above the line, which is divided by the part of the fraction below line, the denominator.</p>
<h2>Getting some perspective</h2>
<p>One possible denominator is <a href="https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2021/Facebook-Reports-Third-Quarter-2021-Results/default.aspx">2.9 billion monthly active Facebook users</a>, in which case, on average, every Facebook user has been exposed to at least one piece of information from these health misinformation sources. But these are 3.8 billion content views, not discrete users. How many pieces of information does the average Facebook user encounter in a year? Facebook does not disclose that information. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Text that reads misinformation problem equals sign n over question mark" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429612/original/file-20211101-21-1ygeqgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429612/original/file-20211101-21-1ygeqgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=148&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429612/original/file-20211101-21-1ygeqgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=148&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429612/original/file-20211101-21-1ygeqgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=148&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429612/original/file-20211101-21-1ygeqgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=186&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429612/original/file-20211101-21-1ygeqgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=186&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429612/original/file-20211101-21-1ygeqgi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=186&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Without knowing the denominator, a numerator doesn’t tell you very much.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation U.S.</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Market researchers estimate that Facebook users spend from <a href="https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/facebook.com">19 minutes a day</a> to <a href="https://techjury.net/blog/time-spent-on-social-media/">38 minutes a day</a> on the platform. If the <a href="https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2021/Facebook-Reports-Third-Quarter-2021-Results/default.aspx">1.93 billion daily active users</a> of Facebook see an average of 10 posts in their daily sessions – a very conservative estimate – the denominator for that 3.8 billion pieces of information per year is 7.044 trillion (1.93 billion daily users times 10 daily posts times 365 days in a year). This means roughly 0.05% of content on Facebook is posts by these suspect Facebook pages. </p>
<p>The 3.8 billion views figure encompasses all content published on these pages, including innocuous health content, so the proportion of Facebook posts that are health misinformation is smaller than one-twentieth of a percent.</p>
<p>Is it worrying that there’s enough misinformation on Facebook that everyone has likely encountered at least one instance? Or is it reassuring that 99.95% of what’s shared on Facebook is not from the sites Avaaz warns about? Neither. </p>
<h2>Misinformation distribution</h2>
<p>In addition to estimating a denominator, it’s also important to consider the distribution of this information. Is everyone on Facebook equally likely to encounter health misinformation? Or are people who identify as anti-vaccine or who seek out “alternative health” information more likely to encounter this type of misinformation? </p>
<p>Another social media study focusing on extremist content on YouTube offers a method for understanding the distribution of misinformation. <a href="https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/exposure-to-alternative-extremist-content-on-youtube#executive-summary">Using browser data from 915 web users</a>, an Anti-Defamation League team recruited a large, demographically diverse sample of U.S. web users and oversampled two groups: heavy users of YouTube, and individuals who showed strong negative racial or gender biases in a set of questions asked by the investigators. <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/25/oversampling-is-used-to-study-small-groups-not-bias-poll-results/">Oversampling</a> is surveying a small subset of a population more than its proportion of the population to better record data about the subset.</p>
<p>The researchers found that 9.2% of participants viewed at least one video from an extremist channel, and 22.1% viewed at least one video from an alternative channel, during the months covered by the study. An important piece of context to note: A small group of people were responsible for most views of these videos. And more than 90% of views of extremist or “alternative” videos were by people who reported a high level of racial or gender resentment on the pre-study survey.</p>
<p>While roughly 1 in 10 people found extremist content on YouTube and 2 in 10 found content from right-wing provocateurs, most people who encountered such content “bounced off” it and went elsewhere. The group that found extremist content and sought more of it were people who presumably had an interest: people with strong racist and sexist attitudes. </p>
<p>The authors concluded that “consumption of this potentially harmful content is instead concentrated among Americans who are already high in racial resentment,” and that YouTube’s algorithms may reinforce this pattern. In other words, just knowing the fraction of users who encounter extreme content doesn’t tell you how many people are consuming it. For that, you need to know the distribution as well.</p>
<h2>Superspreaders or whack-a-mole?</h2>
<p>A widely publicized study from the anti-hate speech advocacy group Center for Countering Digital Hate titled <a href="https://www.counterhate.com/pandemicprofiteers">Pandemic Profiteers</a> showed that of 30 anti-vaccine Facebook groups examined, 12 anti-vaccine celebrities were responsible for 70% of the content circulated in these groups, and the three most prominent were responsible for nearly half. But again, it’s critical to ask about denominators: How many anti-vaccine groups are hosted on Facebook? And what percent of Facebook users encounter the sort of information shared in these groups? </p>
<p>Without information about denominators and distribution, the study reveals something interesting about these 30 anti-vaccine Facebook groups, but nothing about medical misinformation on Facebook as a whole.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429646/original/file-20211101-25-1ul42oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A hand holds a smart phone displaying a message from Facebook about limiting COVID-19 misinformation" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429646/original/file-20211101-25-1ul42oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429646/original/file-20211101-25-1ul42oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429646/original/file-20211101-25-1ul42oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429646/original/file-20211101-25-1ul42oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429646/original/file-20211101-25-1ul42oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429646/original/file-20211101-25-1ul42oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429646/original/file-20211101-25-1ul42oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Facebook says it’s combating COVID-19 misinformation on its platforms, but without knowing the scope of the problem, there’s no way to judge the company’s efforts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-photo-illustration-a-smart-phone-screen-displays-a-news-photo/1233135584">Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These types of studies raise the question, “If researchers can find this content, why can’t the social media platforms identify it and remove it?” The Pandemic Profiteers study, which implies that Facebook could solve 70% of the medical misinformation problem by deleting only a dozen accounts, explicitly advocates for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-deplatforming-work-to-curb-hate-speech-and-calls-for-violence-3-experts-in-online-communications-weigh-in-153177">deplatforming</a> of these dealers of disinformation. However, I found that 10 of the 12 anti-vaccine influencers featured in the study have already been removed by Facebook.</p>
<p>Consider Del Bigtree, one of the three most prominent spreaders of vaccination disinformation on Facebook. The problem is not that Bigtree is recruiting new anti-vaccine followers on Facebook; it’s that Facebook users follow Bigtree on other websites and bring his content into their Facebook communities. It’s not 12 individuals and groups posting health misinformation online – it’s likely thousands of individual Facebook users sharing misinformation found elsewhere on the web, featuring these dozen people. It’s much harder to ban thousands of Facebook users than it is to ban 12 anti-vaccine celebrities.</p>
<p>This is why questions of denominator and distribution are critical to understanding misinformation online. Denominator and distribution allow researchers to ask how common or rare behaviors are online, and who engages in those behaviors. If millions of users are each encountering occasional bits of medical misinformation, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/09/twitter-put-warning-labels-hundreds-thousands-tweets-our-research-examined-which-worked-best/">warning labels</a> might be an effective intervention. But if medical misinformation is consumed mostly by a smaller group that’s actively seeking out and sharing this content, those warning labels are most likely useless.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p>
<h2>Getting the right data</h2>
<p>Trying to understand misinformation by counting it, without considering denominators or distribution, is what happens when good intentions collide with poor tools. No social media platform makes it possible for researchers to accurately calculate how prominent a particular piece of content is across its platform. </p>
<p>Facebook restricts most researchers to its <a href="https://www.crowdtangle.com/">Crowdtangle</a> tool, which shares information about content engagement, but this is not the same as content views. <a href="https://developer.twitter.com/en/developer-terms/more-on-restricted-use-cases">Twitter explicitly prohibits researchers</a> from calculating a denominator, either the number of Twitter users or the number of tweets shared in a day. YouTube makes it so difficult to find out how many videos are hosted on their service that Google routinely asks interview candidates to <a href="https://www.productmanagementexercises.com/1637/estimate-the-total-number-of-videos-on-youtube">estimate the number of YouTube videos hosted</a> to evaluate their quantitative skills. </p>
<p>The leaders of social media platforms have argued that their tools, despite their problems, <a href="https://phys.org/news/2019-02-zuckerberg-positive-facebook-firestorm.html">are good for society</a>, but this argument would be more convincing <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02341-9">if researchers could independently verify that claim</a>.</p>
<p>As the societal impacts of social media become more prominent, pressure on the big tech platforms to release more data about their users and their content is likely to increase. If those companies respond by increasing the amount of information that researchers can access, look very closely: Will they let researchers study the denominator and the distribution of content online? And if not, are they afraid of what researchers will find?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164838/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ethan Zuckerman receives funding from the MacArthur Foundation, the Knight Foundation and the Ford Foundation. He is affiliated with the Danielle Allen for Governor (MA) campaign.</span></em></p>Not knowing how many posts people see on social media overall or where specific types of content get concentrated is keeping researchers in the dark about misinformation.Ethan Zuckerman, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Communication, and Information, UMass AmherstLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1661472021-08-31T12:28:01Z2021-08-31T12:28:01ZDo US teens have the right to be vaccinated against their parents’ will? It depends on where they live<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416860/original/file-20210818-25-1rji9gv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=29%2C14%2C2430%2C1622&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many U.S. states follow some form of "mature minor doctrine" allowing teens to make medical decisions without parental consent, including COVID-19 vaccination.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/junior-molly-day-gets-her-first-pfizer-biontech-covid-news-photo/1316145676?adppopup=true">Pete Bannan/MediaNews Group/Daily Times via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends COVID-19 vaccines for everyone aged 12 and up. And yet, <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-07-14/cdc-data-coronavirus-vaccine-coverage-lowest-among-12-15-year-olds">12- to 15-year olds</a> are the least vaccinated age group in the country, with 1 in 3 having received one dose and just 1 in 4 being fully vaccinated – about half the rate of the population as a whole.</p>
<p>In some states, minors can legally decide for themselves whether they would like to get vaccinated. In Tennessee, for example, state law allows teens 14 and older to make medical treatment decisions without parental consent. But earlier this summer, state health officials <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/07/16/1016746277/records-show-tennessees-justification-for-firing-its-vaccine-leader">fired their vaccination director</a> after she <a href="https://wpln.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2021/06/MatureMinor_COVID19Coadministration_May122021.pdf">wrote a memo explaining the law</a> to state medical providers.</p>
<p>I <a href="https://news.fiu.edu/2021/vaccine-law-class">teach vaccine law</a>, so I know the principle that certain minors may be vaccinated without parental consent is woven into our country’s history.</p>
<p>It is also in line with the recommendations of the medical profession in general. In 2013, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.039">the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine advocated</a> “policies and strategies that maximize opportunities for minors to receive vaccinations when parents are not physically present.”</p>
<p>However, there’s no federal law mandating this right in the United States. Instead, there’s a state-by-state patchwork of widely varied regimes. In some, parental consent is always mandatory. In others, there are laws that establish the conditions under which minors can decide for themselves – although, <a href="https://fox17.com/news/local/tennessee-parents-upset-over-law-allowing-kids-to-get-vaccinated-without-parental-consent-mature-minor-doctrine-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine">as the Tennessee situation shows</a>, even this right can cause controversy.</p>
<h2>Parental consent is the norm</h2>
<p>Generally, parents or legal guardians have primary legal authority to make health decisions for their children, including vaccination decisions. When a state legally allows parents to request exemptions for legally mandated childhood vaccinations, these laws universally require that the parents are the ones to take steps to obtain it. </p>
<p>When minor children disagree with their parents’ opposition to vaccination, they must look to statutes or case law for assistance, and may find it lacking. </p>
<p>As of 2021, roughly one-third of U.S. states have passed laws establishing the “mature minor doctrine”: a legal framework allowing minors to independently obtain health care without parental consent, within specified limitations. Some, but not all, specifically include vaccination.</p>
<p>In other states, minors may still be able to make their own medical decisions thanks to state court rulings establishing the mature minor doctrine. </p>
<p><iframe id="DbxQl" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/DbxQl/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The 1928 Mississippi case of <a href="https://casetext.com/case/gulf-sir-co-v-sullivan">Gulf & S.I.R. Co. v. Sullivan</a> is one of the earliest of these rulings. In this case, the parents of a 17-year-old railroad employee sued his employer, alleging that a smallpox vaccination administered by the company physician had injured the teen. The parents had neither consented nor objected to his employment by the railroad or the vaccination, but later claimed that their consent was needed for the smallpox shot. </p>
<p>The Mississippi Supreme Court disagreed, finding that in possessing the intellectual maturity to get the railroad job, the teen also “was of sufficient intelligence to understand and appreciate the consequences of the vaccination.”</p>
<p>In 1967’s <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1967/38891-1.html">Smith v. Selby</a>, the Washington State Supreme Court similarly upheld a minor’s right to make their own medical decisions – in this case, of a married teen to consent to his own vasectomy due to a medical illness. </p>
<p>Since then, courts in a number of other states have established the mature minor doctrine as well – including Tennessee, where the state supreme court’s 1987 ruling in <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/supreme-court/1987/724-s-w-2d-739-2.html">Cardwell v. Bechtol</a> allows teenagers aged 14 to 18 to consent to medical treatment so long as the treating physician finds the minor to be “sufficiently mature to make his or her own health care decisions.”</p>
<p>Mature minor laws can vary considerably <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-minors-consent-law">from state to state</a>. </p>
<p>Some examples: </p>
<p><a href="https://www.vaxteen.org/consent-laws-by-state">In Alaska, Arkansas and Idaho</a>, minors of any age may choose their own medical care when their doctor deems them capable of meeting standards of informed consent. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.vaxteen.org/alabama">In Alabama</a>, minors may consent to health care at the age of 14, <a href="https://www.vaxteen.org/oregon">in Oregon</a> at 15 and in Kansas <a href="https://www.vaxteen.org/south-carolina">and South Carolina</a> at 16. Montana provides this right to minors who have graduated from high school. </p>
<p>Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey and Pennsylvania <a href="https://www.vaxteen.org/consent-laws-by-state">have statutes</a> permitting minors to make their own medical decisions based on a variety of factors, such as gaining legal emancipation from their parents, being married – or divorced or widowed – being pregnant or a parent, or enlisting in the military.</p>
<p>A smaller number of states have statutes specific to vaccination. <a href="https://www.vaxteen.org/new-york">In New York</a>, for example, minors of any age may consent specifically to vaccinations related to sexually transmitted diseases. <a href="https://www.vaxteen.org/california">In California</a> <a href="https://www.vaxteen.org/delaware">and Delaware</a>, those over the age of 12 can receive such vaccinations. <a href="https://www.vaxteen.org/minnesota">In Minnesota</a>, minors of any age may consent to the hepatitis B vaccination.</p>
<h2>Not just an abstract legal question</h2>
<p>When a child disagrees with their parents’ opposition to vaccination, it can deeply strain family bonds.</p>
<p>In 2019, in <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/measles-outbreak/teen-steals-show-congress-tackles-anti-vaccine-misinformation-campaigns-n979591">testimony before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions</a>, an Ohio teenager named Ethan Lindenberger described how online misinformation about side effects frightened his mother to the point of refusing to let him get vaccinated. </p>
<p>“Her love and affection and care as a parent was used to push an agenda to create a false distress,” he said. </p>
<p>That left Lindenberger vulnerable to a number of preventable illnesses <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/teen-who-got-all-his-shots-despite-anti-vaccine-mother-n978706">until he turned 18</a> and could decide for himself.</p>
<p>Lindenberger gave his testimony amid one of the worst measles outbreaks in the United States in decades. <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html">According to the CDC</a>, 2019 saw 1,282 cases of measles in the U.S. – nearly four times higher than 2018 and the highest since 1992. The “majority of cases were among people who were not vaccinated against measles,” according to the CDC.</p>
<p>Unvaccinated teens can also be vulnerable financially. Shortly after the publication of my book “<a href="https://briandeanabramson.com/vaccine-vaccination-and-immunization-law/">Vaccine, Vaccination and Immunization Law</a>” in 2018, I met a student at Florida International University with a similar experience. By the time the student had turned 18 and chose for themselves to be vaccinated, they were too old to be covered by the federally funded <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/index.html">Vaccines For Children program</a>. This student told me they were unable to afford the cost of the numerous recommended series of vaccines.</p>
<h2>Minors’ medical rights in limbo</h2>
<p>Not all efforts by states to pass laws <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/26/health/covid-vaccine-teens-consent.html">expanding the ability of minors to seek vaccination</a> have succeeded. Recently, these measures have met strong opposition from the anti-vaccination movement, and history suggests that this will only increase in the face of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy.</p>
<p>In 2020, a Maryland bill to permit minors over the age of 16 to consent to vaccination <a href="https://dbknews.com/2020/02/20/maryland-vaccine-bill-annapolis-senate-minor-mature-hearing/">was withdrawn</a>. New York lawmakers also <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s4244">proposed a bill</a> that year to further expand the ability of minors over the age of 14 to consent to vaccination. So far, the bill appears to be stalled.</p>
<p>[<em>Over 110,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=100Ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p>
<p>In the District of Columbia, a <a href="https://www.npr.org/local/305/2021/07/19/1017879942/parents-take-aim-at-d-c-law-that-lets-minors-get-vaccinated-without-permission">lawsuit has been filed</a> challenging legislation <a href="https://dcist.com/story/21/07/19/parents-take-aim-dc-law-allows-minors-get-vaccinated-without-parental-permission/">passed in 2020</a> permitting minors of any age – as long as they are capable of meeting standards of informed consent – to receive any vaccination recommended by the CDC’s <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/index.html">Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices</a>.</p>
<p>It now appears that anti-vaccination sentiment has stalled expansion of the mature minor doctrine. I am not aware of any current court cases involving minors seeking vaccination over parental objections, nor of any cases of minors traveling to other states to receive vaccinations under this doctrine. </p>
<p>Even in states where the mature minor doctrine is established, most teenagers are probably unaware of their rights. And as recent history in Tennessee shows, efforts to educate them about those rights may prove controversial.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/166147/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Dean Abramson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Some states have a legal framework allowing “mature minors” to make their own health care decisions – but they apply it in different ways, and some don’t have it at all.Brian Dean Abramson, Adjunct Professor of Vaccine Law, Florida International UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1649872021-07-29T12:22:49Z2021-07-29T12:22:49ZBig tech has a vaccine misinformation problem – here’s what a social media expert recommends<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/413625/original/file-20210728-25-19cs07d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4992%2C3488&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Misinformation on social media is hindering efforts to vaccinate people against the coronavirus.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/health-worker-prepares-a-syringe-with-the-covid19-vaccine-news-photo/1233122251">Sheldon Cooper/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>With less than half the United States population fully vaccinated for COVID-19 and as the delta variant sweeps the nation, the U.S. surgeon general issued an advisory that called misinformation <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/07/15/us-surgeon-general-issues-advisory-during-covid-19-vaccination-push-warning-american.html">an urgent threat to public health</a>. The advisory said efforts by social media companies to combat misinformation are “too little, too late and still don’t go far enough.” The advisory came more than a year after the World Health Organization warned of a COVID-related <a href="https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/un-tackling-%E2%80%98infodemic%E2%80%99-misinformation-and-cybercrime-covid-19">“infodemic.”</a> </p>
<p>There’s good reason to be concerned. A study in the U.K. and the U.S. found that exposure to online misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1">reduced the number of people who said they would get vaccinated</a> and increased the number of people who said they would not. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JpFHYKcAAAAJ&hl=en">researcher who studies social media</a>, I can recommend ways social media companies, in collaboration with researchers, can <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.hlpt.2021.100520">develop effective interventions against misinformation</a> and help build trust and acceptance of vaccines. The government could intervene, but <a href="https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/5/35599177-e826-4155-bb92-785d9c50c452/61E493711AE47642A9416719C042404F.health-misinformation-act.pdf">a bill to curb medical misinformation on social media</a> filed in July is revealing some of the challenges – it’s <a href="https://techpolicy.press/experts-bill-to-reform-section-230-to-address-health-misinfo-is-a-dud/">drawing scorn</a> for leaving to a political appointee decisions about what constitutes misinformation.</p>
<h2>The threat</h2>
<p>A serious threat in online settings is that <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559">fake news spreads faster</a> than verified and validated news from credible sources. Articles connecting vaccines and death have been <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/03/25/980035707/lying-through-truth-misleading-facts-fuel-vaccine-misinformation">among the content people engage with most</a>. </p>
<p>Algorithms on social media platforms are <a href="https://theconversation.com/hate-cancel-culture-blame-algorithms-129402">primed for engagement</a>. Recommendation engines in these platforms <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/23262">create a rabbit-hole effect</a> by pushing users who click on anti-vaccine messages toward more anti-vaccine content. Individuals and groups that spread medical misinformation <a href="https://techpolicy.press/vaccines-and-the-mediation-of-consent/">are well organized to exploit the weaknesses</a> of the engagement-driven ecosystems on social media platforms. </p>
<p>Social media is being <a href="https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-01-13-social-media-manipulation-political-actors-industrial-scale-problem-oxford-report">manipulated on an industrial scale</a>, including <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-disinformation-campaign-aims-to-undermine-confidence-in-pfizer-other-covid-19-vaccines-u-s-officials-say-11615129200">a Russian campaign pushing disinformation</a> about COVID-19 vaccines. Researchers have found that people who rely on Facebook as their primary source of news about the coronavirus are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/27/people-are-more-anti-vaccine-if-they-get-their-covid-19-news-facebook-rather-than-fox-news-new-data-shows/">less likely to be vaccinated</a> than people who get their coronavirus news from any other source.</p>
<p>While social media companies have actively tagged and removed misinformation about COVID-19 generally, stories about vaccine side effects are more insidious because conspiracy theorists may not be trafficking in false information as much as engaging in selectively distorting risks from vaccination. These efforts are part of a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01452-z">well-developed disinformation ecosystem</a> on social media platforms that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/05/26/vaccine-mandate-litigation-siri-glimstad-ican/">extends to offline anti-vaccine activism</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/413424/original/file-20210727-590-ylofq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman in a white lab coat sitting in a kitchen points a laptop screen to the viewer" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/413424/original/file-20210727-590-ylofq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/413424/original/file-20210727-590-ylofq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/413424/original/file-20210727-590-ylofq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/413424/original/file-20210727-590-ylofq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/413424/original/file-20210727-590-ylofq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/413424/original/file-20210727-590-ylofq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/413424/original/file-20210727-590-ylofq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Anti-vaccine activists use sophisticated misinformation techniques, including hijacking social media accounts of health care workers like this physician and presenting misinformation via the stolen identities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/VirusOutbreakMisinformationTargets/ef2aaaeb6c9d4a25b634558b787f0f58/photo">AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Misinformation on social media may also fuel vaccine inequities. There are <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/">significant racial disparities</a> among COVID-19 vaccine recipients so far. For example, though vaccine-related misinformation is not the only source of these differences, health-related misinformation is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/03/facebook-spanish-language-misinformation-covid-19-election">rife on Spanish-language Facebook</a>. </p>
<p>Here are two key steps social media companies can take to reduce vaccine-related misinformation.</p>
<h2>Block known sources of vaccine misinformation</h2>
<p>There have been popular anti-vaccine hashtags such as #vaccineskill. Though it was blocked on Instagram two years ago, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/21/tech/facebook-vaccineskill-hashtag/index.html">it was allowed on Facebook until July 2021</a>. Aside from vaccines, misinformation on multiple aspects of COVID-19 prevention and treatment abounds, including <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2498">misinformation about the health benefits of wearing a mask</a>. </p>
<p>Twitter recently suspended U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene for a couple of days, citing a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/technology/marjorie-taylor-greene-twitter.html">post of COVID misinformation</a>. But social media companies could do a lot more to block disinformation spreaders. Reports suggest that most of the vaccine disinformation on Facebook and Twitter <a href="https://www.counterhate.com/disinformationdozen">comes from a dozen users who are still active on social media</a> referred to as the disinformation dozen. The list is topped by <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/mercola-doctor-disinformation-dozen-anti-covid-vaccination-2021-7">businessman and physician Joseph Mercola and prominent anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.</a></p>
<p>Evidence suggests that infodemic superspreaders engage in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F20539517211013861">coordinated sharing of content</a>, which increases their effectiveness in spreading disinformation and, correspondingly, makes it all the more important to block them. Social media platforms need to more aggressively <a href="https://techpolicy.press/vaccines-and-the-mediation-of-consent/">flag harmful content</a> and remove people known to traffic in vaccine-related disinformation. </p>
<h2>Disclose more about medical misinformation</h2>
<p>Facebook claims that it has <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-19/facebook-removed-18-million-misleading-posts-on-covid-19">taken down 18 million pieces of coronavirus misinformation</a>. However, the company <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/facebook-willfully-ignored-its-covid-misinformation-problem-report-says/">doesn’t share data about misinformation</a> on its platforms. Researchers and policymakers don’t know how much <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/joe-biden-facebook-anti-vax-covid-killing-people.html">vaccine-related misinformation is on the platforms and how many people are seeing and sharing</a> misinformation. </p>
<p>Another challenge is distinguishing between different types of engagement. My own research studying medical information on YouTube <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3061149">found different levels of engagement</a>, people simply viewing information that’s relevant to their interests and people commenting on and providing feedback about the information. The issue is how vaccine-related misinformation fits into people’s preexisting beliefs and to what extent their skepticism of vaccines is accentuated by what they are exposed to online.</p>
<p>Social media companies can also partner with health organizations, medical journals and researchers to more <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.hlpt.2021.100520">thoroughly and credibly identify medical misinformation</a>. </p>
<p>[<em>Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=100Ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p>
<p>Researchers who are working to understand how misinformation spreads rely on social media companies to conduct research about users’ behavior on their platforms. For instance, <a href="https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c202djsz">what researchers do know about anti-vaccine disinformation</a> on Facebook comes from Facebook’s <a href="https://www.crowdtangle.com/">CrowdTangle</a> data analysis tool for public information on the platforms. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BZs9bO8crjE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">How to use CrowdTangle to see coronavirus information on Facebook and Instagram.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Researchers need more information from the companies, including ways to <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/03/21/opinion/divisive-demoralizing-bots-are-winning-so-big-tech-needs-think-bigger/">spot bot activity</a>. Facebook could follow its own example from when it provided data to researchers <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49987657">seeking to uncover Russian fake news campaigns</a> targeted at African American voters. </p>
<p>Data about about social media will help researchers answer key questions about medical misinformation, and the answers in turn could lead to better ways of countering the misinformation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164987/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anjana Susarla does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Combating vaccine misinformation on social media requires blocking sources of misinformation – and giving researchers access to data about how misinformation spreads.Anjana Susarla, Omura-Saxena Professor of Responsible AI, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1583092021-05-05T04:45:19Z2021-05-05T04:45:19ZThe first step to curbing COVID vaccine misinformation is finding out who is most vulnerable. Our research sheds some light<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/398817/original/file-20210505-19-1b9vr7l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=120%2C27%2C6062%2C4087&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The success of Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout will depend on everyone’s willingness to receive it. But <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-04/covid-19-vaccine-misinformation-cald-communities/13186936">experts</a> have warned vaccine misinformation online puts Australia’s communities at risk, and some more than others.</p>
<p>Often, misinformation and undue scepticism are spread on social media. In March, the ABC <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-04/covid-19-vaccine-misinformation-cald-communities/13186936">reported</a> on WeChat posts spreading the false claim the Pfizer vaccine can integrate with people’s DNA to transform them into “genetically modified humans”. </p>
<p>Studies have <a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.26.21250246v1">shown</a> that people who rely on social platforms such as YouTube for their information are significantly less willing to be vaccinated. Adding to that, research conducted by a <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ebb-and-flow-of-covid-19-vaccine-support-what-social-media-tells-us-about-australians-and-the-jab-157874">Griffith University team</a> found reports about the AstraZeneca and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/johnson-johnson-reports-100-million-quarterly-covid-19-vaccine-sales-2021-04-20/">Johnson & Johnson</a> vaccines’ (very rare) link to blood clots had led to a drop in vaccine acceptance rates. </p>
<p>In such a rapidly shifting information landscape, we have to make sure those most at risk from COVID-19 are empowered to get vaccinated early.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-vaccine-rollout-needs-all-hands-on-deck-after-the-latest-astrazeneca-news-mass-vaccination-hubs-included-158519">Australian vaccine rollout needs all hands on deck after the latest AstraZeneca news, mass vaccination hubs included</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>False claims spread like wildfire</h2>
<p>My colleagues and I surveyed 215 residents in Victoria to <a href="https://www.bnhcrc.com.au/sites/default/files/managed/downloads/peter_hayes.pdf">find out</a> how vulnerable groups accessed emergency-related news. Survey participants (all of which used social media) included elderly residents, geographically or socially isolated people, and people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. </p>
<p>We found 73% of respondents accessed emergency-related news on social media, the second preference after television. Facebook was the platform of choice and was used “often” by 70% of respondents. On average, social media was used more frequently by younger people and women.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/398820/original/file-20210505-21-skf1ii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/398820/original/file-20210505-21-skf1ii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/398820/original/file-20210505-21-skf1ii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/398820/original/file-20210505-21-skf1ii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/398820/original/file-20210505-21-skf1ii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/398820/original/file-20210505-21-skf1ii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/398820/original/file-20210505-21-skf1ii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/398820/original/file-20210505-21-skf1ii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">61% of respondents said they would not trust messages on social media, except when posted by official sources.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The information landscape during a pandemic can be compared to that during a large bushfire: there are high-levels of uncertainty and risk, coupled with <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overload-helps-fake-news-spread-and-social-media-knows-it/">large volumes of information</a>. In both scenarios individuals rely on affiliated and geographical groups for important notices, such as community and postcode groups on Facebook.</p>
<p>Of the people we surveyed, 40% percent believed information encountered on social media could be more accurate than official sources. And the vast majority (88%) said they expected to use social media as a news source in the future. Also, more than half reported getting their information through family or friends (65%), who said they themselves found it on social media.</p>
<p>Sourcing emergency information from social media can complicate our understanding of difficult issues. There are huge volumes of content, the quality is often poor and it can be difficult — particularly for vulnerable groups — to separate fact from fiction. </p>
<h2>Filling knowledge gaps</h2>
<p>Experts <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misinformation-has-created-a-new-world-disorder/">explain</a> how the purveyors of misinformation exploit our willingness to share content without thinking. Even if even a small percentage of what we share is inaccurate, it creates a feedback loop that exacerbates the problem of a high information load coupled with poor information quality. </p>
<p>Adding to this, we know a person’s individual biases and worldview can also make them more <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biases-make-people-vulnerable-to-misinformation-spread-by-social-media/">vulnerable to misinformation</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/398819/original/file-20210505-19-fhvyn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/398819/original/file-20210505-19-fhvyn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/398819/original/file-20210505-19-fhvyn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/398819/original/file-20210505-19-fhvyn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/398819/original/file-20210505-19-fhvyn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/398819/original/file-20210505-19-fhvyn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/398819/original/file-20210505-19-fhvyn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/398819/original/file-20210505-19-fhvyn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s common for individuals to seek information on complex issues from sources that sit within their worldview.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Of those we surveyed, 61% felt they had very specific information needs during emergencies based on factors such as age, location and personal circumstances. When there’s a gap between a person’s information needs and information provided by the government, they must fill this gap with other sources. </p>
<p>The good news is there are several ways all of us can help curb vaccine misinformation on social media and, consequently, in our communities.</p>
<h2>How to help</h2>
<p>For a start, the federal government’s Department of Health has a useful <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/is-it-true">site</a> addressing common concerns around vaccine development and efficacy. It even responds to conspiracy questions such as: “Can COVID-19 vaccines connect me to the internet?”</p>
<p>Trusted sites should always be referred to in discussions about vaccines. There are also online <a href="https://libguides.tru.ca/fakenews/beating">guides</a> to help individuals refine their own ability to spot misinformation.</p>
<p>Our research found 87% of respondents thought it was important for official emergency response organisations to use social media. So perhaps it would be beneficial for these groups to increase their visibility on these platforms.</p>
<p>Beyond this, the younger and more tech-savvy among us can help those who are older, or culturally or linguistically diverse. If you know someone who gets their vaccine information from Facebook or a similar platform, redirect them to a more reputable source such as a government website, government-approved social media page or trusted news outlet.</p>
<p>Social media groups have a role to play, too. Group administrators and active members should ensure official health information is shared on pages, as they are often a “go to” source of information for the public. And where misinformation does sneak in, it must always be challenged or reported.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cutting-the-abc-cuts-public-trust-a-cost-no-democracy-can-afford-140438">Cutting the ABC cuts public trust, a cost no democracy can afford</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/158309/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stan Karanasios receives funding from the National Disaster Resilience Grant Scheme, Emergency Management Victoria (2017-2019). </span></em></p>We surveyed social media users from vulnerable groups and found 73% got their vital news from social platforms. How can we protect these people from vaccine misinformation?Stan Karanasios, Associate professor, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1570992021-03-18T12:19:39Z2021-03-18T12:19:39Z7 ways to avoid becoming a misinformation superspreader<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389858/original/file-20210316-16-1ifjiq8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=14%2C14%2C4778%2C3671&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Identify and stop the lies.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/big-hand-with-cartoon-character-stop-sign-royalty-free-illustration/1292878719">NLshop/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The problem of misinformation isn’t going away. Internet platforms like Facebook and Twitter have <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-twitter-idUSKCN2590FU">taken some steps to curb its spread</a> and say they are working on doing more. But no method yet introduced has been completely successful at removing all misleading content from social media. The best defense, then, is self-defense. </p>
<p>Misleading or outright false information – broadly called “misinformation” – can come from websites pretending to be news outlets, political propaganda or “<a href="http://source.sheridancollege.ca/fhass_huma_publ/1">pseudo-profound</a>” reports that seem meaningful but are not. Disinformation is a type of misinformation that is deliberately generated to maliciously mislead people. Disinformation is intentionally shared, knowing it is false, but misinformation can be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239666">shared by people who don’t know it’s not true</a>, especially because people often share links online <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/dont-want-to-fall-for-fake-news-dont-be-lazy/">without thinking</a>.</p>
<p>Emerging psychology research has revealed some tactics that can help protect our society from misinformation. Here are seven strategies you can use to avoid being misled, and to prevent yourself – and others – from spreading inaccuracies.</p>
<h2>1. Educate yourself</h2>
<p>The best inoculation against what the World Health Organization is calling the “<a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/immunizing-the-public-against-misinformation">infodemic</a>” is to understand the <a href="https://theconversation.com/10-ways-to-spot-online-misinformation-132246">tricks that agents of disinformation are using</a> to try to manipulate you.</p>
<p>One strategy is called “<a href="https://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/roozenbeek-van-der-linden-resisting-digital-misinformation">prebunking</a>” – a type of debunking that happens before you hear myths and lies. Research has shown that <a href="https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.91">familiarizing yourself with the tricks of the disinformation trade</a> can help you <a href="https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xap0000315">recognize false stories</a> when you encounter them, making you less susceptible to those tricks.</p>
<p>Researchers at the University of Cambridge have developed an online game called “<a href="https://www.getbadnews.com/">Bad News</a>,” which their studies have shown can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-027">improve players’ identification of falsehoods</a>.</p>
<p>In addition to the game, you can also learn more about how <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920498117">internet and social media platforms work</a>, so you better understand the tools available to people seeking to manipulate you. You can also learn more about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21581">scientific research and standards of evidence</a>, which can help you be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201199">less susceptible to lies and misleading statements</a> about health-related and scientific topics. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389863/original/file-20210316-13-j493c8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Badges identify ways misinformation exploits people's minds" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389863/original/file-20210316-13-j493c8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389863/original/file-20210316-13-j493c8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389863/original/file-20210316-13-j493c8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389863/original/file-20210316-13-j493c8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389863/original/file-20210316-13-j493c8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=633&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389863/original/file-20210316-13-j493c8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=633&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389863/original/file-20210316-13-j493c8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=633&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Playing the ‘Bad News’ online game illustrates different ways information warriors can prey on people’s psychological vulnerabilities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.getbadnews.com/">Screenshot of Get Bad News</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Recognize your vulnerabilities</h2>
<p>The prebunking approach works for people across the political spectrum, but it turns out that people who underestimate their biases are actually more vulnerable to being misled than people who acknowledge their biases. </p>
<p>Research has found people are more <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biases-make-people-vulnerable-to-misinformation-spread-by-social-media/">susceptible to misinformation</a> that aligns with their preexisting views. This is called “<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/2018/05/15/fake-news-social-media-confirmation-bias-echo-chambers/533857002/">confirmation bias</a>,” because a person is biased toward believing information that confirms what they already believe.</p>
<p>The lesson is to be particularly critical of information from groups or people with whom you agree or find yourself aligned – whether politically, religiously, or by ethnicity or nationality. Remind yourself to <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2019.00011">look for other points of view</a>, and other sources with information on the same topic. </p>
<p>It is especially important to be honest with yourself about <a href="https://www.allsides.com/rate-your-bias">what your biases are</a>. Many people assume others are biased, but <a href="https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/june/bias-blind-spot.html">believe they themselves are not</a> – and imagine that <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/poi3.214">others are more likely to share misinformation</a> than they themselves are.</p>
<h2>3. Consider the source</h2>
<p>Media outlets have a range of biases. The <a href="https://www.adfontesmedia.com/">Media Bias Chart</a> describes which outlets are <a href="https://observer.com/2018/06/media-bias-can-readers-trust-media-pew-research-center-knight-foundation/">most and least partisan</a> as well as how reliable they are at <a href="https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/">reporting facts</a>.</p>
<p>You can play an online game called “<a href="https://fakey.osome.iu.edu/">Fakey</a>” to see how susceptible you are to different ways news is presented online.</p>
<p>When consuming news, make sure you know how trustworthy the source is – or whether it’s <a href="https://www.cjr.org/fake-beta">not trustworthy at all</a>. Double-check stories from other sources with low biases and high fact ratings to find out who – and what – you can actually trust, rather than just <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12586">what your gut tells you</a>. </p>
<p>Also, be aware that some disinformation agents <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherelliott/2019/02/21/these-are-the-real-fake-news-sites/">make fake sites</a> that look like real news sources – so make sure you’re conscious of which site you are actually visiting. Engaging in this level of <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806781116">thinking about your own thinking</a> has been shown to improve your ability to tell fact from fiction.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389867/original/file-20210316-17-1xajml4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man leans back from his desk" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389867/original/file-20210316-17-1xajml4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389867/original/file-20210316-17-1xajml4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389867/original/file-20210316-17-1xajml4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389867/original/file-20210316-17-1xajml4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389867/original/file-20210316-17-1xajml4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389867/original/file-20210316-17-1xajml4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389867/original/file-20210316-17-1xajml4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Take a moment to think before you decide to share something online.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/man-in-office-royalty-free-image/641199968">10'000 Hours/Digital Vision via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. Take a pause</h2>
<p>When most people go online, especially on social media, they’re there for <a href="https://www.searchenginejournal.com/seo-101/why-do-people-visit-websites-today/">entertainment, connection or even distraction</a>. Accuracy isn’t always high on the priority list. Yet <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820969893">few want to be a liar</a>, and the <a href="https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/after-truth-disinformation-and-the-cost-of-fake-news">costs of sharing misinformation</a> can be high – to individuals, their relationships and society as a whole. Before you decide to share something, take a moment to remind yourself of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797620939054">value you place on truth and accuracy</a>. </p>
<p>Thinking “is what I am sharing true?” can help you stop the spread of misinformation and will encourage you to <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/nosacredcows/2018/09/study-confirms-most-people-share-articles-based-only-on-headlines/">look beyond the headline</a> and potentially fact-check before sharing. </p>
<p>Even if you don’t think specifically about accuracy, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000729">just taking a pause before sharing</a> can give you a chance for your mind to catch up with your emotions. Ask yourself whether you really want to share it, and if so, <a href="https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-009">why</a>. Think about what the potential consequences of sharing it might be. </p>
<p>Research shows that most misinformation is shared quickly and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011">without much thought</a>. The impulse to share without thinking can <a href="https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2020/02/fake-news">even be more powerful</a> than partisan sharing tendencies. Take your time. There is no hurry. You are not a <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2013/11/sharing-fast-and-slow-the-psychological-connection-between-how-we-think-and-how-we-spread-news-on-social-media/">breaking-news</a> organization upon whom thousands depend for immediate information. </p>
<h2>5. Be aware of your emotions</h2>
<p>People often share things because of their gut reactions, rather than the conclusions of critical thinking. In a <a href="https://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/martel-emotion-misinformation-social-media">recent study</a>, researchers found that people who viewed their social media feed while in an emotional mindset were <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00252-3">significantly more likely to share misinformation</a> than those who went in with a more rational state of mind. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12164">Anger and anxiety</a>, in particular, make people more vulnerable to falling for misinformation.</p>
<h2>6. If you see something, say something</h2>
<p>Stand up to misinformation publicly. It may feel uncomfortable to challenge your friends online, especially if you fear conflict. The person to whom you respond with a link to a <a href="https://snopes.com">Snopes post</a> or other fact-checking site may not appreciate being called out. </p>
<p>But evidence shows that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000635">explicitly critiquing the specific reasoning</a> in the post and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1313883">providing counterevidence like a link</a> about how it is fake is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2020.1838671">an effective technique</a>.</p>
<p>Even <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12383">short-format refutations</a> – like “this isn’t true” – are more effective than saying nothing. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1077699017710453">Humor – though not ridicule of the person</a> – can work, too. When <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.032">actual people correct misinformation online</a>, it can be <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312">as effective</a>, if not <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1794553">more so</a>, as when a social media company labels something as questionable. </p>
<p>People <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2056305120935102">trust other humans</a> more than algorithms and bots, especially those in our own social circles. That’s particularly true if you have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1075547017731776">expertise in the subject</a> or are a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334018">close connection</a> with the person who shared it. </p>
<p>An additional benefit is that public debunking notifies other viewers that they may want to look more closely before choosing to share it themselves. So even if you don’t discourage the original poster, you are discouraging others.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389871/original/file-20210316-22-1ehva9y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A child raises a finger" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389871/original/file-20210316-22-1ehva9y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389871/original/file-20210316-22-1ehva9y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389871/original/file-20210316-22-1ehva9y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389871/original/file-20210316-22-1ehva9y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389871/original/file-20210316-22-1ehva9y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389871/original/file-20210316-22-1ehva9y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389871/original/file-20210316-22-1ehva9y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Even kids know to speak up when they see something wrong.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/latinx-toddler-points-his-index-finger-while-royalty-free-image/1198721866">Mireya Acierto/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>7. If you see someone else stand up, stand with them</h2>
<p>If you see someone else has posted that a story is false, don’t say “well, they beat me to it so I don’t need to.” When more people chime in on a post as being false, it signals that sharing misinformation is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.032">frowned upon by the group more generally</a>.</p>
<p>Stand with those who stand up. If you don’t and something gets shared over and over, that <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191203094813.htm">reinforces people’s beliefs that it is OK</a> to share misinformation – because everyone else is doing it, and only a few, if any, are objecting.</p>
<p>Allowing misinformation to spread also makes it more likely that even more people will start to believe it – because people come to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000098">believe things they hear repeatedly</a>, even if they know at first <a href="https://theconversation.com/unbelievable-news-read-it-again-and-you-might-think-its-true-69602">they’re not true</a>.</p>
<p>There is no perfect solution. Some misinformation is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564">harder to counter than others</a>, and some countering tactics are more effective at different times or for different people. But you can go a long way toward protecting yourself and those in your social networks from confusion, deception and falsehood.</p>
<p>[<em>Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=100Ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157099/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>H. Colleen Sinclair receives funding from the Department of Defense.</span></em></p>A social psychologist explains how to avoid being misled, and how to prevent yourself – and others – from spreading inaccurate information.H. Colleen Sinclair, Associate Professor of Social Psychology, Mississippi State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1556532021-03-17T13:51:43Z2021-03-17T13:51:43ZHow Canadians can use social media to help debunk COVID-19 misinformation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386266/original/file-20210224-17-zix5lb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=83%2C11%2C1826%2C1413&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The #ScienceUpFirst campaign targets online misinformation about COVID-19 that can endanger public health.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Canva)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>You do not need statistics to know that health-related misinformation is rampant on social media, including with respect to COVID-19. But here are some jarring examples anyway: <a href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-28-0001/2021001/article/00003-eng.htm">Statistics Canada reported</a> that nearly all Canadians saw COVID-19 misinformation online; only one in five Canadians always check the accuracy of online COVID-19 information; and half of Canadians shared COVID-19 information they found online without knowing whether it was accurate. </p>
<p>These statistics are not trivial, as <a href="https://extranet.who.int/iris/restricted/handle/10665/330778">misinformation</a> can endanger public health. Many damaging myths about COVID-19 have circulated on social media, for example: </p>
<ul>
<li>COVID-19 can spread by 5G mobile networks (<a href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters#5g">viruses cannot travel through radio waves or mobile networks</a>); </li>
<li>mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can change your DNA (<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html">nope, that’s seriously not how they work</a>); and </li>
<li>COVID-19 vaccines can negatively affect fertility in women or men (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n509">there’s no evidence for this claim</a>). </li>
</ul>
<p>Health misinformation and conspiracy theories do real damage. They have been linked to a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201199">decreased likelihood of following public health advice</a>, such as wearing masks, and can influence health decisions, such as the <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1835348">likelihood to get influenza vaccines</a> and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01056-1">intent to get COVID-19 vaccines</a>. </p>
<p>In this vein, health misinformation can fuel vaccine hesitancy, which the <a href="https://journalistsresource.org/home/6-tips-for-covering-vaccine-hesitancy/">World Health Organization</a> has listed as one of the top 10 threats to global health. That threat becomes very clear and very immediate in the context of COVID-19. With vaccination programs underway, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1">vaccine hesitancy could threaten the goal of herd immunity</a>, which is key to ending the pandemic. </p>
<p>Organizations including the <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2021/02/government-of-canada-supports-projects-to-encourage-vaccine-uptake-in-canada.html">federal government</a> and the <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-vaccine-debunking-myths-1.5881177">Ontario Medical Association</a> are concerned enough about vaccine hesitancy to specifically address it through funding and advocacy, and the <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/let-s-flatten-the-infodemic-curve">World Health Organization</a> has dubbed the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01266-z">extent of misinformation online an “infodemic</a>.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389690/original/file-20210315-19-1ewbuhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Infographic listing seven ways to spot misinformation" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389690/original/file-20210315-19-1ewbuhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389690/original/file-20210315-19-1ewbuhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=340&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389690/original/file-20210315-19-1ewbuhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=340&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389690/original/file-20210315-19-1ewbuhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=340&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389690/original/file-20210315-19-1ewbuhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389690/original/file-20210315-19-1ewbuhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389690/original/file-20210315-19-1ewbuhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The World Health Organization’s Infodemic campaign suggests seven ways to spot misinformation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(World Health Organization, 2020)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is a very real need to ensure that reliable, evidence-based information is as available, plentiful and accessible as misinformation, and that it travels as quickly online. That is precisely the goal of the <a href="https://www.scienceupfirst.com/">#ScienceUpFirst initiative</a>: to provide, support and boost accurate scientific information online to help people make informed health decisions. </p>
<h2>Championing evidence-based public health</h2>
<p>The #ScienceUpFirst project began when <a href="https://www.ualberta.ca/law/faculty-and-research/health-law-institute/people/timothycaulfield.html">public health scholar Timothy Caulfield</a>, Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta, and <a href="https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/kutcher-stan/">Senator Stanley Kutcher of Nova Scotia</a> recruited a national coalition of scientists, communicators and health experts to empower Canadians to work together against misinformation about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. </p>
<p>As a clinical psychologist with an interest in science communication and health-related misinformation, I was honoured to join the team in the service of those goals, along with other professionals who are independently represented from an array of Canadian universities and organizations. Operationally, the project is supported by the <a href="https://www.canadiansciencecentres.ca/">Canadian Association of Science Centres</a>, <a href="https://covid19resources.ca/">COVID-19 Resources Canada</a> and the <a href="https://www.ualberta.ca/law/faculty-and-research/health-law-institute/index.html">Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385308/original/file-20210219-17-1gbpfgm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="ScienceUpFirst logo reading 'Together against misinformation'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385308/original/file-20210219-17-1gbpfgm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385308/original/file-20210219-17-1gbpfgm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385308/original/file-20210219-17-1gbpfgm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385308/original/file-20210219-17-1gbpfgm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385308/original/file-20210219-17-1gbpfgm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385308/original/file-20210219-17-1gbpfgm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385308/original/file-20210219-17-1gbpfgm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">#ScienceUpFirst works to counter online misinformation and conspiracy theories.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(ScienceUpFirst)</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The bilingual campaign uses the online hashtags #ScienceUpFirst and #LaScienceDAbord on social media platforms including Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, and will eventually include TikTok. In essence, #ScienceUpFirst uses social media to promote and amplify the best available science-based content, in an effort to debunk misinformation. </p>
<p>The initial goal of the campaign is to follow <a href="https://www.ualberta.ca/law/media-library/faculty-research/hli/media/images/caulfield-debunking-works-vulnerable-caulfield.pdf">evidence-based guidelines</a> to target misinformation and conspiracy theories specifically related to COVID-19 vaccines, virus transmission and government response. Eventually, the framework can be applied beyond the COVID-19 pandemic to address other types of health- and science-related misinformation.</p>
<p>At the social media level, the campaign seeks out, evaluates and boosts existing, evidence-based content, with the intention of engaging Canadians to help to share and amplify that content on social media. Importantly, this involves efforts to adapt content and ensure that it reflects and speaks to the diverse socio-demographic that comprises the Canadian population.</p>
<p>The project will also track trending misinformation and respond swiftly with corrected content created as part of the #ScienceUpFirst initiative. </p>
<h2>Is it worth it?</h2>
<p>Addressing misinformation is definitely worth the effort. Research shows that <a href="https://www.ualberta.ca/law/media-library/faculty-research/hli/media/images/caulfield-debunking-works-vulnerable-caulfield.pdf">debunking works</a> and can be effective if it is done correctly. </p>
<p>This means using evidence-based tactics when crafting a message to counter misinformation. These include, but are not limited to: providing the science, using clear and shareable content, referencing trustworthy sources, noting the scientific consensus and its evolution, incorporating narrative and story, leading with facts, being nice and authentic and highlighting gaps in logic and rhetorical devices. </p>
<h2>How to participate</h2>
<p>The #ScienceUpFirst movement is not passive, but is an ongoing, interactive project designed to thrive on Canadians’ participation. </p>
<p>There are three ways people can help amplify evidence-based information, and debunk misinformation with #ScienceUpFirst: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Follow @ScienceUpFirst on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, and engage with and share content using the hashtag #ScienceUpFirst or #LaScienceDAbord.</p></li>
<li><p>Tag @ScienceUpFirst in COVID-19 science-based posts and misinformation posts on all social media channels.</p></li>
<li><p>Visit <a href="https://www.scienceupfirst.com/">www.ScienceUpFirst.com</a> to sign up for a weekly newsletter.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The project launched at the end of January, and garnered over 8,500 posts and more than 42 million views across social media platforms in its first week.</p>
<p>Health professionals and scientists have an ethical responsibility to promote and practise evidence-based patient care and public health. Part of that mission includes calling out and correcting misinformation online via science communication on social media. </p>
<p>We welcome and encourage everyone to join us.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155653/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan N. Stea does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A national coalition of scientists, communicators and health experts is empowering Canadians to work together against online misinformation about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines with #ScienceUpFirst.Jonathan N. Stea, Clinical Psychologist and Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of CalgaryLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1559582021-03-07T19:06:50Z2021-03-07T19:06:50ZWill the COVID vaccine make me test positive for the coronavirus? 5 questions about vaccines and COVID testing answered<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/387400/original/file-20210303-17-5hxpnk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C10%2C997%2C652&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/woman-face-mask-getting-vaccinated-coronavirus-1814780726">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>COVID-19 vaccination is rolling out across Australia. So health authorities are keen to <a href="https://coronavirus.nt.gov.au/stay-safe/symptoms-testing/facts-and-myths">dispel myths</a> <a href="https://www.ncirs.org.au/covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-frequently-asked-questions">about the vaccines</a>, including <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html">any impact on COVID testing</a>.</p>
<p>Do the vaccines give you COVID, or make you test positive for COVID? Does the vaccine affect other tests? Do we still need to get COVID tested if we have symptoms, even after getting the shot? And will we still need COVID testing once more of the population gets vaccinated?</p>
<p>We look at the evidence to answer five common questions about the impact of COVID vaccines on testing.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/do-i-need-to-register-for-a-covid-vaccine-how-will-i-know-when-its-my-turn-vaccine-rollout-questions-answered-156041">Do I need to register for a COVID vaccine? How will I know when it's my turn? Vaccine rollout questions answered</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>1. Will the vaccine give me COVID?</h2>
<p>The short answer is “no”. That’s because the vaccines approved for use so far in Australia and elsewhere <a href="https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/covid-vaccination-faqs.aspx#sick">don’t contain live COVID virus</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine.html">Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine</a> contains an artificially generated portion of viral mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid). This carries the specific genetic instructions for your body to make the coronavirus’s “spike protein”, against which your body mounts a protective immune response.</p>
<p>The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a different technology. It packages viral DNA into a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine.html">viral vector “carrier” based on a chimpanzee adenovirus</a>. When this is delivered into your arm, the DNA prompts your body to produce the spike protein, again stimulating an immune response.</p>
<p>Any vaccine side-effects, such as fever or feeling fatigued, <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/02/covid-19-vaccination-after-your-covid-19-vaccination-covid-19-vaccination-after-your-covid-19-vaccination.pdf">are usually mild and temporary</a>. These are signs the vaccines are working to boost your immune system, rather than signs of COVID itself. These symptoms are also <a href="https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/resources/handbook-tables/table-common-side-effects-following-immunisation-for-vaccines-used-in-the">common after routine vaccines</a>.</p>
<h2>2. Will the COVID vaccine make me test positive?</h2>
<p>No, a COVID vaccine <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/covid-19-vaccination-atagi-clinical-guidance-on-covid-19-vaccine-in-australia-in-2021">will not affect the results</a> of a diagnostic COVID test.</p>
<p>The current gold-standard diagnostic test is <a href="https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-testing-australia-information-health-professionals">known as nucleic acid PCR testing</a>. This looks for the mRNA (genetic material) of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. This is a marker of current infection.</p>
<p>This is the test the vast majority of people have when they line up at a drive-through testing clinic, or attend a COVID clinic at their local hospital.</p>
<p>Yes, the Pfizer vaccine contains mRNA. But the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-mrna-vaccines-from-pfizer-and-moderna-work-why-theyre-a-breakthrough-and-why-they-need-to-be-kept-so-cold-150238">mRNA it uses</a> is only a small part of the entire viral RNA. It also cannot make copies of itself, which would be needed for it to be in sufficient quantity to be detected. So it cannot be detected by a PCR test. </p>
<p>The AstraZeneca vaccine also only contains part of the DNA <a href="https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/covid-19-vaccines">but is inserted</a> in an adenovirus carrier that cannot replicate so cannot give you infection or a positive PCR test.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-mrna-vaccines-from-pfizer-and-moderna-work-why-theyre-a-breakthrough-and-why-they-need-to-be-kept-so-cold-150238">How mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna work, why they're a breakthrough and why they need to be kept so cold</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>3. How about antibody testing?</h2>
<p>While PCR testing is used to look for current infection, antibody testing — also known as <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/serology-testing.html">serology testing</a> — picks up past infections.</p>
<p>Laboratories look to see if your immune system has <a href="https://theconversation.com/antibody-tests-to-get-a-grip-on-coronavirus-we-need-to-know-whos-already-had-it-134547">raised antibodies</a> against the coronavirus, a sign your body has been exposed to it. As it takes time for antibodies to develop, testing <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests.html">positive</a> with an antibody test may indicate you were infected weeks or months ago. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1366380200720621579"}"></div></p>
<p>But your body also produces antibodies as a response to vaccination. That’s the way it can recognise SARS-CoV-2, the next time it meets it, to protect you from severe COVID.</p>
<p>So as COVID vaccines are rolled out, and people develop a vaccine-induced antibody response, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html">it may become difficult</a> to differentiate between someone who has had COVID in the past and someone who was vaccinated a month ago. But this will depend on the serology test used. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/antibody-tests-to-get-a-grip-on-coronavirus-we-need-to-know-whos-already-had-it-134547">Antibody tests: to get a grip on coronavirus, we need to know who's already had it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The good news is that antibody testing is not nearly as common as PCR testing. And it’s only ordered under limited and rare circumstances.</p>
<p>For instance, when someone tests positive with PCR, but they are a <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-cant-we-use-antibody-tests-for-diagnosing-covid-19-yet-138519">false positive due to the characteristics of the test</a>, or have fragments of virus lingering in the respiratory tract from an old infection, public health experts might request an antibody test to see whether that person was infected in the past. They might also order an antibody test <a href="https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cdna-song-novel-coronavirus.htm">during contact tracing</a> of cases with an unknown source of infection.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-cant-we-use-antibody-tests-for-diagnosing-covid-19-yet-138519">Why can't we use antibody tests for diagnosing COVID-19 yet?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>4. If I get vaccinated, do I still need a COVID test if I have symptoms?</h2>
<p>Yes, we will continue to test for COVID as long as the virus is circulating anywhere in the world.</p>
<p>Even though the COVID vaccines are looking promising in preventing people from getting seriously sick or dying, they won’t provide 100% protection. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765">Real-world data</a> suggests some vaccinated people can still catch the virus, but they usually only get mild disease. We are unsure whether vaccinated people will be able to <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-vaccinated-people-still-spread-the-coronavirus-155095">potentially pass it to others</a>, even if they don’t have any symptoms. So it’s important people continue to get tested.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/387902/original/file-20210304-24-axm8pz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="COVID-19 testing sign" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/387902/original/file-20210304-24-axm8pz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/387902/original/file-20210304-24-axm8pz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387902/original/file-20210304-24-axm8pz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387902/original/file-20210304-24-axm8pz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387902/original/file-20210304-24-axm8pz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387902/original/file-20210304-24-axm8pz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387902/original/file-20210304-24-axm8pz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s important people still get tested if they have symptoms, even after having the vaccine.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hobart-tasmania-australia-april-18th-2020-1711813849">Kristen Sadler/www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Furthermore, not everyone will be eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. For instance, in Australia, <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/covid-19-vaccination-atagi-clinical-guidance-on-covid-19-vaccine-in-australia-in-2021">current guidelines</a> exclude people under 16 years of age, and those who are allergic to ingredients in the vaccine. And although pregnant women are not ruled out from receiving the vaccine, it is not routinely recommended. This means a proportion of the population will remain susceptible to catching the virus.</p>
<p>We also are unsure about how effective vaccines will be against <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775006">emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants</a>. So we will continue to test to ensure people are not infected with these strains.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-south-african-brazilian-a-virologist-explains-each-covid-variant-and-what-they-mean-for-the-pandemic-154547">UK, South African, Brazilian: a virologist explains each COVID variant and what they mean for the pandemic</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We know testing, detecting new cases early and contact tracing are the core components of the public health response to COVID, and will continue to be a priority from a public health perspective.</p>
<p>Minimum numbers of daily COVID tests are also needed so we can be confident the virus is not circulating in the community. As an example, New South Wales <a href="https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/clinics-guidelines.aspx">aims for 8,000 or more tests</a> a day to maintain this peace of mind.</p>
<p>Continued vigilance and high rates of testing for COVID will also be important as we enter the flu season. That’s because the only way to differentiate between COVID and influenza (or any other respiratory infection) is via testing.</p>
<h2>5. Will testing for COVID stop as time goes on?</h2>
<p>It is unlikely our approach to COVID testing will change in the immediate future. However, as COVID vaccines are rolled out and since COVID is likely to become <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-might-become-endemic-heres-how-153572">endemic</a> and stay with us for a long time, the acute response phase to the pandemic will end. </p>
<p>So COVID testing may become part of managing other infectious diseases and part of how we respond to other ongoing health priorities.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-might-become-endemic-heres-how-153572">Coronavirus might become endemic – here's how</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155958/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Meru Sheel receives funding from the Westpac Scholars Trust.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nothing to disclose.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charlee J Law does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Even if you’re vaccinated, you still need to come forward for COVID testing, even if you have the mildest symptoms.Meru Sheel, Epidemiologist | Senior Research Fellow, Australian National UniversityCharlee J Law, Epidemiologist | Research Associate, Australian National UniversityCyra Patel, PhD candidate, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1538532021-02-04T13:10:59Z2021-02-04T13:10:59ZWhat a squeezed rubber ducky suggests about the lingering effects of vaccine misinformation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381426/original/file-20210129-19857-uvkluf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C7%2C4885%2C3623&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Believe it or not, this little guy has inspired new scientific thought about the COVID-19 vaccine.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/individual-yellow-rubber-duck-royalty-free-image/1163891584?adppopup=true">Peter Dazeley via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The mutations in the coronavirus indicate that the virus is working hard to survive, with transmissible COVID-19 variants <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7003e2.htm?s_cid=mm7003e2_w">being detected around the world</a>. These mutations have increased the urgency of vaccinating hundreds of millions of people within a matter of months. While that work has been stymied by governmental missteps, <a href="https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy-reaches-42-among-nyc-residents-poll-reveals/2847065/">vaccine resistance</a> could ultimately be the biggest hurdle to reaching herd immunity. </p>
<p>And yet, we find hope in a rubber duck – or at least in the way a squeezed duck returns to its normal state. We have found that changing people’s beliefs about vaccines is going to take time, the way a deflated rubber duck springs back slowly after being squeezed. However much we’d love to cast Harry Potter’s “Reparo” charm and make vaccine hesitancy flick away instantly, we need to work hard at it. </p>
<p>Our research in the<a href="https://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Efengfu/"> Fu lab at Dartmouth College</a> focuses on the principles that govern dynamics of evolving systems across different domains and at different scales. Our current research combines game theory models of vaccination behavior with an epidemiological process to provide insight into <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/health/virus-vaccine-game-theory.html">the vaccination compliance problem</a>. We have found that the same effect that causes the delayed recovery of a squeezed rubber duck – the hysteresis effect – can appear as an unforeseen roadblock for the recovery of vaccination rates. While vaccination has long met resistance, some experts point to a <a href="https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/new-media-old-messages-themes-history-vaccine-hesitancy-and-refusal/2012-01">1982 television documentary about vaccination for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus</a> that led to the deep skepticism about vaccines today. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YLd8zLQQrD4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Many materials display hysteresis, a “lagging behind” in returning to an original state.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How a physical property can also apply to social factors</h2>
<p>The term “hysteresis” is derived from <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BD%91%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AD%CF%81%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82">ὑστέρησις</a>, an ancient Greek word meaning “lagging behind.” It was coined by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Ewing">Sir James Alfred Ewing</a> to describe the behavior of magnetic materials. Iron maintains some magnetization after it has been exposed to and removed from a magnetic field.</p>
<p>The phenomenon also occurs in other systems that have memory. In economics, it refers to economic events that persist into the future, even after the triggers have been removed. It is why unemployment rates may continue to climb despite a recovering economy following a recession.</p>
<p>Such history dependence can be caused by the physical properties of an object or the biological functions of an organism, and in other cases it is due to social or psychological factors.</p>
<p>A more endearing example is the rubber duck. When a child squeezes a rubber duck, it will change shape. Even after the child releases the duck, it will not spring back quickly. </p>
<p>Whether in the science lab, business hub or bathtub, the effects of hysteresis are easy to see. And it is the same force coming into play around vaccination campaigns.</p>
<h2>Hysteresis in public health</h2>
<p>We discovered for the first time the hysteresis effect and the existence of a hysteresis loop in the context of public health and vaccine behavior in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2406">a 2019 research paper</a>. The hysteresis loop can be caused by concerns related to the effectiveness and perceived risk of vaccines. Negative experiences or perceptions related to vaccination affect the trend of uptake and cause the “vaccination trajectory” to get stuck in a hysteresis loop. </p>
<p>Imagine, again, our squeezed rubber duck. Mistrust in vaccines – no matter how unfounded – <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-scientists-and-public-health-officials-need-to-address-vaccine-mistrust-instead-of-dismissing-it-146955">causes an increase in the perceived risk</a> of vaccination. This hinders the growth of the vaccine uptake rate – as the duck is deformed. People may still resist vaccination even after misinformation has been corrected. The rubber duck will not spring back instantly, no matter how demanding the child.</p>
<p>The result is clear: Not only are vaccination rates impaired by rumors in the immediate term, but recovering public confidence takes an extended time.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Cars lined up at a vaccination center." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381783/original/file-20210201-13-68ihct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381783/original/file-20210201-13-68ihct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381783/original/file-20210201-13-68ihct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381783/original/file-20210201-13-68ihct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381783/original/file-20210201-13-68ihct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381783/original/file-20210201-13-68ihct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381783/original/file-20210201-13-68ihct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cars line up at a vaccination center in Denver, Colorado, on Jan. 30.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-drive-their-cars-to-medical-tents-at-a-mass-covid-19-news-photo/1230878462?adppopup=true">Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Vaccine compliance</h2>
<p>Our results have practical implications for improving vaccine compliance by overcoming the hysteresis effect. </p>
<p><a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations">The data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a> shows that over 50 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the U.S., whereas merely 6 million people have completed the vaccination process.</p>
<p>Although not the only reason for the sluggish vaccination drive, mistrust is slowing the process. <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html">Questions about mRNA vaccines</a> make people skeptical of getting them. Some <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-health-care-worker-reluctance/">health care personnel</a> and <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-05/only-60-percent-lapd-employees-want-covid-vaccine-internal-survey">front-line essential workers</a> themselves are declining to be vaccinated.</p>
<p>Indecision and hesitancy are the tight fist that squeezes the rubber duck. Publicizing vaccine knowledge and accelerating the distribution process is more vital than ever if we want to loosen the grip that is complicating vaccination efforts.</p>
<p>For fact-checked information on the COVID-19 vaccines, public health officials should continue to promote reliable sources including the website of the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/index.html">CDC</a> and <a href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines">the World Health Organization</a>. <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication/vaccination-toolkit.html">Social media-ready vaccine content</a>, too, is being leveraged to effectively communicate with the audience and combat misinformation across platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.</p>
<p>For residents waiting anxiously for their turn, <a href="https://wgntv.com/news/coronavirus/watch-live-chicago-announces-online-portal-for-covid-19-vaccine-appointments/">a user-friendly registration portal</a> and <a href="https://www.wcvb.com/article/mass-covid-19-vaccine-appointment-call-center-to-launch-this-week/35408933">an easy appointment</a> are needed to accelerate the distribution process. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/28/oregon-snowstorm-vaccine-traffic-covid/">A leftover dose should be given to anyone who wants it</a>, regardless of his or her priority, to prevent vaccines from expiring and going wasted.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1355697452926590980"}"></div></p>
<h2>Herd immunity and altruistic behavior</h2>
<p>Vaccination hesitance is just one example of human cooperation problems in the real world. To avoid the <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tragedy-of-the-commons.asp">tragedy of the commons</a>, which says, essentially, that people pursue their own needs at the expense of others’, the U.S. needs cooperative and collective action. An individual’s vaccination contributes to <a href="https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html">herd immunity</a>, where people who are not immune are indirectly protected if most of the population is immune to an infectious disease.</p>
<p>To improve vaccine compliance and achieve herd immunity with COVID-19 expeditiously, the U.S. should overcome the hysteresis effect by reducing the resistance to vaccination. In particular, vaccination campaigns should promote vaccination as an altruistic behavior that has tremendous societal benefit. By getting vaccinated, we protect not only family members, friends and colleagues, but also strangers, including those who cannot be vaccinated, like newborns. </p>
<p>To embrace a quick “back to normal,” the U.S. cannot help but rely on a prompt and effective mass vaccination before it is too late to control new virus variants. It has already taken a herculean effort to develop, distribute and administer the vaccines. Now it is time to help the rubber duck return to form.</p>
<p>[<em>Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=coronavirus-facts">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.</a>]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153853/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Feng Fu receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gates Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Xingru Chen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Vaccine hesitancy will not go away fast. In fact, there are parallels in the physical world to how quickly or slowly an object returns to its normal state.Xingru Chen, Ph.D. Candidate in Applied Mathematics, Dartmouth CollegeFeng Fu, Assistant Professor of Mathematics, Dartmouth CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1530582021-02-03T14:37:08Z2021-02-03T14:37:08ZCan an employee object to mandatory COVID-19 vaccines on religious grounds?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381942/original/file-20210202-15-u9b6jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=13%2C6%2C4635%2C2502&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many employers are hoping vaccines provide 'a shot in the arm,' but can staff opt out?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/brockton-police-detective-ernie-bell-got-the-covid-19-news-photo/1230548863?adppopup=true">David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-19-vaccine-doses.html">rollout of vaccines across the U.S.</a> has finally given hope to many employers of a return to some form of normality. </p>
<p>Although the program has <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/us/vaccine-rollout-problems-biden-invs/index.html">gotten off to a faltering start</a>, the <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administration-orders-additional-200-million-doses-covid-19-vaccine-n1255744">promise that hundreds of millions of employees could soon be vacinated</a> could provide a lifeline to businesses that rely on face-to-face customer service, such as restaurants, and also allow the reopening of offices across the U.S.</p>
<p>But can a company mandate its staff to be vaccinated? And what happens if an employee refuses to take the shot, citing their religious beliefs?</p>
<p>These are not just hypothetical questions. A number of U.S. companies including <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/united-airlines-ceo-wants-to-make-covid-vaccines-mandatory-for-its-employees.html">airlines</a> and <a href="https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/operations/confusion-uncertainty-mount-restaurants-consider-covid-vaccine">restaurants</a> have said they’ll require mandatory vaccines for their workforce. And as a <a href="https://zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/faculty-profile/debbie-kaminer/">law professor who has written about vaccination laws</a>, I believe that in some circumstances, employers could find themselves on the hook for religious discrimination if their vaccination policies fail to offer a religious exemption. </p>
<h2>What do the guidelines say?</h2>
<p>In December, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – the body responsible for interpreting and enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws – <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws">issued guidelines</a> addressing employees’ rights and COVID-19 vaccinations.</p>
<p>It was the first time that the commission has provided an update on vaccines since the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Then, it advised employers that they should consider “<a href="https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=ulr">encouraging employees to get the influenza vaccine rather than requiring them to take it</a>.” </p>
<p>Under the new guidelines, employers are allowed to adopt mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies. But the commission warned that any such policy would be subject to certain anti-discrimination laws. </p>
<p>In terms of religion, the commission points toward <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964#:%7E:text=Title%20VII%20prohibits%20employment%20discrimination,religion%2C%20sex%20and%20national%20origin.">Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act</a>. This legislation requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance – but only if the accommodation can be made without “undue hardship” on the employer’s business.</p>
<p>The new guidelines echo earlier court rulings that take a broad definition of religion as including “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1605.1">moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong</a>” that are held by the believer with the same sincerity as that of traditional religions. </p>
<p>As such, opposition to mandatory vaccines could be made from members of smaller faith communities as well as from adherents of more mainstream religions. For example some <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/heres-where-major-religions-actually-stand-on-vaccines_n_58dc3ef0e4b08194e3b71fc4">Christian Scientists and members of the Dutch Reformed Church</a> are opposed to vaccination. There have also been legal challenges brought where employees state that their <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/memorial-healthcare-pay-74418-settle-eeoc-religious-discrimination-lawsuit">Christian beliefs</a> require they avoid inoculation. </p>
<h2>What is ‘undue hardship’?</h2>
<p>Whether an objection on religious grounds is accepted will depend on whether it is deemed to not cause the business “undue hardship” – a phrase that has long been the subject of court interpretation.</p>
<p>On this, the new guidelines abide by the standard established in a 1977 landmark Supreme Court case, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1126">TWA v. Hardison</a>.</p>
<p>In that decision, which focused on an employee’s request for time off for religious observance, the Supreme Court defined “undue hardship” as any cost greater than “de minimis,” or too small to merit consideration. In other words, in the case of COVID-19 vaccines, employers would not be required to incur even a minimal cost in accommodating an employee’s religious objection to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.</p>
<p>But there remains ambiguity. The guidelines do not provide specific examples of what constitutes a “de minimis” cost. Previous court decisions make clear that “undue hardship” should be determined on a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2793604">case-by-case basis</a>.</p>
<p>In terms of COVID-19 vaccinations, workplaces such as bars, gyms and restaurants could conceivably claim “undue hardship” in accommodating religious exemptions to vaccinations on the grounds that doing so <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2923-3">increases the spread of infection</a> among their customers and employees. Similarly, health care facilities and hospitals could claim “undue hardship” due to the greater risk an unvaccinated workforce poses toward the vulnerable populations they serve. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A movie theater displays a sign stating 'we will be closed for a while.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381946/original/file-20210202-21-1qicjge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381946/original/file-20210202-21-1qicjge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381946/original/file-20210202-21-1qicjge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381946/original/file-20210202-21-1qicjge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381946/original/file-20210202-21-1qicjge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381946/original/file-20210202-21-1qicjge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381946/original/file-20210202-21-1qicjge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Shuttered businesses across the U.S. are looking to vaccinate staff as part of reopening plans.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/livingston-mt-march-20-2020-a-usually-busy-main-street-in-news-photo/1213775549?adppopup=true">William Campbell-Corbis via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In consumer-based businesses such as retail and restaurants, there could be an additional cost since the presence of unvaccinated workers could decrease the number of consumers or customers likely to frequent the businesses.</p>
<p>But at jobs in which employees work fully remotely and from home, employers might find it far harder to claim “undue hardship.” In such circumstances, employers are not likely to incur any cost in accommodating the religious employee’s objection, unless the employee themself becomes ill. </p>
<p>In providing its guidance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stresses that it has authority to interpret only federal law. It warns employers to check if state and local laws provide additional protection for religious employees. For example, in New York, employers must accommodate an employee’s request for religious observance when it can be done without the employer incurring “<a href="https://goer.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/10/equal-employment-opportunity-rights-and-responsibilities-handbook_6_20.pdf">significant difficulty or expense</a>.”</p>
<p>[<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=experts">Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get expert takes on today’s news, every day.</a></em>]</p>
<h2>The risk of litigation</h2>
<p>The cost of potential litigation alone may be cause for employers to think twice about not providing religious exemptions from any mandatory vaccine requirement. </p>
<p>During the H1N1 flu pandemic, employees <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1716147">brought over a dozen cases</a> challenging hospitals’ mandatory vaccination policies on religious grounds. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought an additional three lawsuits.</p>
<p>The lawsuits were generally unsuccessful. But some plaintiffs were able to successfully persuade hospitals to settle, with the EEOC settling cases for amounts ranging from approximately <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/memorial-healthcare-pay-74418-settle-eeoc-religious-discrimination-lawsuit">US$74,000</a> to <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/saint-vincent-health-center-pay-300000-settle-eeoc-religious-accommodation-lawsuit#:%7E:text=%2D%20Saint%20Vincent%20Health%20Center%20will,(EEOC)%2C%20the%20federal%20agency">$300,000</a>. </p>
<p>While the current guidelines are more permissive of vaccination policies than the guidelines issued during the H1N1 pandemic, it is impossible to know the exact approach that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will take regarding religious exemptions. </p>
<p>But confronted with the worst public health crisis to hit the United States in a century, I believe the commission may be hesitant to bring litigation that broadly advocates for religious exemptions from vaccination.</p>
<p>There is a final wild card to note. In <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dalberiste-v-gle-associates-inc/">two recent cases</a> <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/small-v-memphis-light-gas-water/">brought to the Supreme Court</a>, employees have asked the justices to overturn the court’s “too small to merit consideration” interpretation of “undue hardship” and instead define it as meaning a significant difficulty or expense.</p>
<p>The cases do not revolve around vaccinations, and the Supreme Court has not yet decided if it will hear either. But if it does and decides in favor of the employees, then employers will eventually face a higher burden when it comes to accommodating religious objections to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153058/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>I am not affiliated with any group. However, I did sign onto amicus briefs in support of a petition for a writ of certiorari in Small v. Memphis Light Gas and Water and Dalberiste v. GLE Associates Inc. (which are the two cases referred to in the last paragraph.</span></em></p>New guidelines take a broad definition of who can apply for a religious exemption to vaccinations. A lot will hinge on what constitutes ‘undue hardship’ to the employer.Debbie Kaminer, Professor of Law, Baruch College, CUNYLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1530042021-01-18T13:11:14Z2021-01-18T13:11:14ZFake news: bold visual warnings needed to stop people clicking – new research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/378251/original/file-20210112-19-2eyj0z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=213%2C477%2C5196%2C2986&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/future-technology-smart-glass-red-touchscreen-201391274">Shutterstock/dencg</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A senior doctor in charge of the NHS anti-disinformation campaign has said that language and cultural barriers could be causing people from ethnic minorities to reject the COVID-19 vaccine. Dr Harpreet Sood told the BBC it was “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55666407">a big concern</a>” and officials were working hard to reach different groups “to correct so much fake news”. </p>
<p>Some of the disinformation is religiously targeted with messages falsely claiming the vaccines contain animal produce like pork and beef which goes against the religious beliefs of Muslims and Hindus, respectively.</p>
<p>The issue of language is key because most warnings about misinformation online are in a written format. Take Facebook’s adoption of new alerts supported by independent <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2019/12/helping-fact-checkers/">fact-checkers</a>, for example. They warn users of fake news and to try to prevent them from sharing it unknowingly. It is certainly a step in the right direction. But text warnings can be easily misunderstood and ignored. And that’s the problem.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A yellow and black 'stop danger' sign." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379066/original/file-20210115-19-1as6mnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379066/original/file-20210115-19-1as6mnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379066/original/file-20210115-19-1as6mnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379066/original/file-20210115-19-1as6mnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379066/original/file-20210115-19-1as6mnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379066/original/file-20210115-19-1as6mnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379066/original/file-20210115-19-1as6mnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Warning signs in the real world use vivid imagery as well as text.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/stop-danger-sign-397941181">Shutterstock/AleksandarLevai</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our research, which will be published later in the year, explores this issue and examines new, more visual, ways to warn users about potential misinformation. For our study, we manipulated a standard Facebook page design to develop ten different visualisation effects. </p>
<p>These effects can be categorised under colour-based or “block” techniques where the text is essentially highlighted, blur effects which play with and alter the focus of the text and pictorial-based techniques – like an image of shattered glass superimposed over the suspicious post. What was of real importance to us was how the image could be used to help people decide what is and isn’t misinformation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A shattered glass warning sign designed by researchers." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/378365/original/file-20210112-19-1cdqtj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/378365/original/file-20210112-19-1cdqtj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=229&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378365/original/file-20210112-19-1cdqtj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=229&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378365/original/file-20210112-19-1cdqtj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=229&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378365/original/file-20210112-19-1cdqtj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378365/original/file-20210112-19-1cdqtj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378365/original/file-20210112-19-1cdqtj3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A shattered glass warning sign designed by researchers.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the physical world the design and use of warning signs is regulated by law and various <a href="https://www.iso.org/standard/72424.html">standards</a> must be followed. But online – and particularly in relation to misinformation – there are hardly any safety standards at all. So more attention needs to be given to the design of these warnings to support and motivate people to take more heed of the threat and its potential impact.</p>
<p>Our study with 550 adults found that people took more notice of warnings with assertive visuals highlighting the text, such as shattered glass or a block effect. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A Facebook warning where text is covered in a block." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/378362/original/file-20210112-21-1lpckhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/378362/original/file-20210112-21-1lpckhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=222&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378362/original/file-20210112-21-1lpckhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=222&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378362/original/file-20210112-21-1lpckhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=222&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378362/original/file-20210112-21-1lpckhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378362/original/file-20210112-21-1lpckhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378362/original/file-20210112-21-1lpckhy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The block visual effect warning.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For many, the block effect clearly warned of impending danger, alarm or misfortune. When we asked which visualisation effect made people question the validity of what they were reading, the block visualisation was more effective for men while the blur visualisation worked better for women. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/378244/original/file-20210112-23-pzwzr6.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/378244/original/file-20210112-23-pzwzr6.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=309&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378244/original/file-20210112-23-pzwzr6.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=309&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378244/original/file-20210112-23-pzwzr6.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=309&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378244/original/file-20210112-23-pzwzr6.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378244/original/file-20210112-23-pzwzr6.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/378244/original/file-20210112-23-pzwzr6.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The blur effect.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Interestingly, the blur effects raised participants suspicions and acted more like a caution, to afford careful and potentially more prudent behaviour on Facebook. </p>
<h2>Looking for clues</h2>
<p>People are still hugely reliant on clues and weaknesses in the presentation of online content as ways to detect misinformation. For example, many participants told us they watch for things like bad spelling and grammar and flaws in the interface (like unprofessional designs) as ways to identify if something is not quite right. Unfortunately, in the age of sophisticated and convincing misinformation attacks, this technique might not be as successful as it once was.</p>
<p>The participants in our study felt they needed more help to cope with misinformation and many mentioned the need for bold signs and warnings. They wanted help to recognise that something is not right and so not to believe it.</p>
<p>Misinformation is clearly not going away. In 2020 a massive outbreak of disinformation about COVID-19 <a href="https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/combatting-covid-19-disinformation-on-online-platforms-d854ec48/">endangered lives</a> and hampered the recovery. So it is more crucial than ever that people are given the right visual tools to find important and reliable information online.</p>
<p>In the real world, there are bold signs that warn us of danger – whether its a red “no entry” sign on a road or an exclamation mark which shouts: keep clear. It’s time key players like Facebook, Google and Twitter considered how a simple tweak to their designs might just help people spot danger online too.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153004/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research was funded by the Welsh Crucible, a consortium of Welsh Higher Education Institutions and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW). I am very grateful to Dr James Kolasinski, Cubric, Cardiff University who was a collaborator on this research project and also to Bastian Bonkel who was a research assistant.</span></em></p>Prominent ‘danger’ signs are needed online to warn people about misinformation.Fiona Carroll, Senior Lecturer in Digital Media and Smart Technologies, Cardiff Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1520972020-12-18T13:03:45Z2020-12-18T13:03:45ZHow to reduce the spread of fake news – by doing nothing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375674/original/file-20201217-23-72qit9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=78%2C127%2C6388%2C3764&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/irritated-angry-african-american-man-wearing-1805431924">Shutterstock/fizkes</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When we come across false information on social media, it is only natural to feel the need to call it out or argue with it. But my research suggests this might do more harm than good. It might seem counterintuitive, but the best way to react to fake news – and reduce its impact – may be to do nothing at all.</p>
<p>False information on social media is a big problem. A <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/1791/1791.pdf">UK parliament committee</a> said online misinformation was a threat to “the very fabric of our democracy”. It can exploit and exacerbate <a href="https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/russian-disinformation-campaigns-on-twitter/">divisions in society</a>. There are many examples of it leading to social unrest and inciting violence, for example in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/sep/05/fake-news-images-add-fuel-to-fire-in-myanmar-after-more-than-400-deaths">Myanmar</a> and the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/09/trump-voter-fraud-threats-violence-militia">United States</a>.</p>
<p>It has often been used to try to influence political processes. One recent report found evidence of organised social media manipulation campaigns in <a href="http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/07/ct2018.pdf">48 different countries</a>. The UK is one of those countries, as demonstrated by <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-activists-trump-wellingborough-fake-news-b1774341.html">news reports</a> about a local branch of the Conservatives which urged activists to campaign by “weaponising fake news”. </p>
<p>Social media users also regularly encounter harmful misinformation about vaccines and <a href="https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/dec/16/lie-year-coronavirus-downplay-and-denial/">virus outbreaks</a>. This is particularly important with the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines because the spread of <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-55179300">false information online</a> may discourage people from <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55332321">getting vaccinated</a> – making it a life or death matter.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fEWygU_qRCQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>With all these very serious consequences in mind, it can be very tempting to comment on false information when it’s posted online – pointing out that it is untrue, or that we disagree with it. Why would that be a bad thing? </p>
<h2>Increasing visibility</h2>
<p>The simple fact is that engaging with false information increases the likelihood that other people will see it. If people comment on it, or <a href="https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/how-to-retweet">quote tweet</a> – even to disagree – it means that the material will be shared to our own networks of social media <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119888654">friends and followers</a>. </p>
<p>Any kind of interaction at all – whether clicking on the link or reacting with an angry face emoji – will make it more likely that the social media platform will show the material to other people. In this way, false information can spread <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559">far and fast</a>. So even by arguing with a message, you are spreading it further. This matters, because if more people see it, or see it more often, it will have an even greater effect.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-term-fake-news-is-doing-great-harm-100406">The term 'fake news' is doing great harm</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>I recently completed a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239666">series of experiments</a> with a total of 2,634 participants looking at why people share false material online. In these, people were shown examples of false information under different conditions and asked if they would be likely to share it. They were also asked about whether they had shared false information online in the past. </p>
<p>Some of the findings weren’t particularly surprising. For example, people were more likely to share things they thought were true or were consistent with their beliefs. </p>
<p>But two things stood out. The first was that some people had deliberately shared political information online that they knew at the time was untrue. There may be different reasons for doing this (trying to debunk it, for instance). The second thing that stood out was that people rated themselves as more likely to share material if they thought they had seen it before. The implication is that if you have seen things before, you are more likely to share when you see them again.</p>
<h2>Dangerous repetition</h2>
<p>It has been well established by numerous studies that the more often people see pieces of information, the more likely they are to <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868309352251">think they are true</a>. A common maxim of propaganda is that if you repeat a lie often enough, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth">it becomes the truth</a>.</p>
<p>This extends to false information online. <a href="https://doi.apa.org/manuscript/2018-46919-001.pdf">A 2018 study</a> found that when people repeatedly saw false headlines on social media, they rated them as being more accurate. This was even the case when the headlines were flagged as being disputed by fact checkers. <a href="http://lbsresearch.london.edu/id/eprint/1277/">Other research</a> has shown that repeatedly encountering false information makes people think it is less unethical to spread it (even if they know it is not true, and don’t believe it).</p>
<p>So to reduce the effects of false information, people should try to reduce its visibility. Everyone should try to avoid spreading false messages. That means that social media companies should consider removing false information completely, rather than just <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/covid19-vaccine.html">attaching a warning label</a>. And it means that the best thing individual social media users can do is not to engage with false information at all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/152097/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Buchanan received funding for the research described in this article from the Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (ESRC Award: ES/N009614/1). <a href="https://crestresearch.ac.uk">https://crestresearch.ac.uk</a> . </span></em></p>Calling out false information on social media may do more harm than good.Tom Buchanan, Professor of Psychology, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.