Impact of COVID-19 misinformation on public health

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the impact of misinformation on public health. There are many examples of the spread of misinformation during times of heightened fear, such as wars, natural disasters, and disease epidemics, but the prevalence of social media has increased unprecedentedly during the pandemic. With a particular focus on infectious diseases, this article delves into the negative impact of misinformation on public health and reviews efforts to ensure accurate health messages are communicated in the social media age.

Social media emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s and has become a powerful platform for networking, self-expression, and information sharing. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center before the pandemic found that 62% of U.S. adults got their news on social media.¹ Social media enables convenient news sharing, but there is no system to ensure that the information you encounter is trustworthy. Social media users can quickly become inundated with information that offers no benefit. Misinformation can spread if it is not backed by a reliable resource. A study by three Massachusetts Institute of Technology academics examined all verified true and false articles distributed on Twitter between 2006 and 2017 and found that false information is more prevalent online than truth. It turned out to be diffuse.² Internet usage is estimated to skyrocket by 50% to 70%³ and 10.5% increase in social media usage^Four In the first wave of the pandemic, a combination of global uncertainty and the search for understanding accelerated the spread of misinformation and disinformation.

In September 2020, the Pan-American Health Organization, the World Health Organization (WHO), and other health alliances announced their concern that the overabundance of information shared during the pandemic was creating barriers to access to reliable information. issued a statement. The timeline from virus outbreak to global pandemic to infodemic was just nine months. This proves how quickly information can be shared in the digital age. In March 2020, there were approximately 550 million Tweets containing any of the following terms: coronavirus (or similar) or pandemic.^Five In 2021, the Surgeon General’s Office will commit to combating misinformation about health that is believed to undermine public health efforts, create mistrust, and adversely affect health through vaccine hesitation and inappropriate treatment use. issued a recommendation. The recommendations mention her five areas of focus: Providing individuals with tools to identify false information. Expand research to understand how misinformation spreads and evolves. Implement product design and policy changes for our technology platforms to slow the spread of misinformation. Invest in long-term effects to build resilience against health misinformation, such as creating health literacy programs. and; convene prominent officials and research partners to investigate the impact of health misinformation and identify best practices to prevent it.⁶

Falsehood created by false information

It’s worth mentioning that the COVID-19 pandemic isn’t the first time misinformation has had a negative impact on public health. Most notably, a 1998 study that claimed a link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and the development of autism was later found to be false. Shortly after this publication, childhood immunizations declined. Even though the paper was completely retracted in 2010, hesitancy about vaccination remains higher than before publication.⁷

In 2019, the United States reported the highest number of measles virus cases since 1992. During the same period, WHO revoked the measles-free status of four European countries.⁸ This highlights how difficult it is to counter misinformation once it permeates public opinion. This example was preceded by widespread misinformation about AIDS infection in the 1980s and widespread stigma against individuals living with or at risk of developing HIV. Even earlier, during the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, the misinformation that Germany was directing or facilitating the spread of a malicious virus, or that vaccinees were infected with the disease. There is evidence that the⁹

Misinformation fueled by social media

Each of these articles conveys examples of how misinformation can adversely affect disease outbreaks. The biggest difference between these examples and the COVID-19 pandemic is how information spreads. Gone are the days of waiting for news to be announced in the morning paper, on the evening broadcast, or by word of mouth. Social media is exploding, with an estimated 456,000 tweets sent, 46,740 Instagram photos posted, and 4,146,600 YouTube videos viewed per day.^Ten Today, more than ever before, misinformation can reach millions with a simple tap of the screen.

Headlines that grab your audience’s attention can go a long way. Screenshots of an article titled “Pfizer Research Director: Covid-19 Vaccine Is Female Sterilization” were no exception and were shared on numerous social media platforms. This originated from European epidemiology, which theorized that the spike protein contained in the vaccine shared similarities with the genetic code for the placental protein syncytin-1 and could trigger an immune response in women’s bodies, leading to infertility. It seems to go back to¹¹ The post quickly garnered attention, and the first randomized, controlled trial of a COVID-19 vaccine did not include pregnant women, contributing to vaccine hesitation already brewing among the young female population. (although a similar frequency of women became pregnant during the trial in both trials). study the arms). But as more evidence becomes available, the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are pushing for a vaccine for everyone who is pregnant, breastfeeding, or planning a pregnancy for the benefit of the mother and fetus. recommended to take it. Nevertheless, the overall proportion of pregnant women who received the COVID-19 vaccine from December 2020 to March 2022 was 27.5%. Concerns about the general safety of COVID-19 vaccines for women and newborns were among the most common reasons for refusal.¹²

Another point of misinformation spread on social media was thought to be ineffective remedies. As the death toll climbed, the public waited for hopeful news about a cure to combat the pandemic. This is how hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin joined the conversation. Ivermectin is an anthelmintic, while hydroxychloroquine, originally developed as an antimalarial drug, is now commonly used to treat autoimmune diseases. What these have in common is evidence of low in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 and a subsequent surge in demand by individuals seeking their use. This demand has created a supply shortage of evidence-based indications. From February 2020 to May 2020 he mentioned hydroxychloroquine more than 160,000 times on his Twitter. process, takeand cure as the most frequently reported word associated with these tweets.¹³ Unfortunately, what has been lost in the social media storm is that in vitro activity does not correlate with in vivo safety or efficacy. Indeed, five randomized controlled trials found a trend toward increased mortality and an increased risk of side effects in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine. Randomized controlled trials have also failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit with ivermectin, although ivermectin has fewer apparent side effects than hydroxychloroquine. The Infectious Diseases Society of America does not endorse the use of these drugs in its guidelines for the treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.¹⁴

The spread of misinformation during disease outbreaks can have detrimental effects. The American Psychological Association believes that the spread of misinformation is related to psychological and cognitive biases. As seen in the MMR paper, when information is frequently liked, shared, or fear-invoked, it is more likely to stick, after facts prove otherwise. But it can be kept for years.¹⁵ The increased use and use of social media platforms during the pandemic have made information available about viruses, vaccines, or available treatments without an infrastructure in place to ensure accuracy The spread of all kinds of information has been amplified. It is critical that social media platforms, public health agencies, and the community at large work together to stop the spread of misinformation and combat the emergence of future infodemics.

References

1. Gottfried J, Shearer E. Use of news across social media platforms 2016. Pew Research Institute. May 26, 2016. Accessed 28 June 2023 2https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016
2. Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. The spread of true and false news online. science. 2018;359(6380):1146-1151. doi:10.1126/science.aap9559
3. Beech M. Initial numbers reveal a 70% increase in internet usage and a more than 12% increase in streaming due to COVID-19. Forbes. March 25, 2020. Accessed 28 June 2023 https://www.forbes.com/sites/markbeech/2020/03/25/covid-19-pushes-up-internet-use-70-streaming-more-than-12- first-figures-reveal/?sh=4d941de73104
4. Snyder V. What marketers need to know about people’s social media patterns during the pandemic. Updated 02/21/2023. Accessed June 28, 2023 https://www.business.com/articles/social-media-patterns-during-the-pandemic
5. Pan American Health Organization, World Health Organization. Understanding the infodemic and misinformation in the fight against COVID-19: a digital transformation toolkit. 2020. Accessed 28 June 2023 https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/52052/Factsheet-infodemic_eng.pdf
6. Office of the Surgeon General. Confronting Health Misinformation: U.S. Surgeon General’s Recommendations for Building a Healthy Information Environment. 2021. Accessed June 28, 2023 https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-misinformation-advisory.pdf
7. Rao TS, Andrade C. MMR Vaccine and Autism: Sensation, Rebuttal, Retraction and Deception. Indian J Psychiatry. 2011;53(2):95-96. Doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.82529
8. Measles cases and outbreaks. CDC. Updated on July 11, 2023. Accessed June 28, 2023 https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html
9. Givens C. Viralization: The novel coronavirus conspiracy from a historical perspective. Ohio State University. July 2020. Accessed 28 June 2023 https://origins.osu.edu/connecting-history/covid-influenza-conspiracies-fake-news? language_content_entity=en%20%E2%80%8C
10. Shepherd J. 24 essential Instagram stats to know in 2023. Updated June 27, 2023. Accessed June 28, 2023 https://thesocialshepherd.com/blog/instagram-statistics
11. There is no evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine results in sterilization. Associated Press. April 2021. https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9856420671
12. Galanis P, Vraka I, Siskou O, Konstantakopoulou O, Katsiroumpa A, Kaitelidou D. Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine in pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine (Basel). 2022;10(5):766. Doi: 10.3390/Vaccine 10050766
13. Do TT, Nguyen D, Le A and others through social media to understand public opinion regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. January 1, 2022. Accessed 28 June 2023 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.00237.pdf
14. Bhimraj A, Morgan RL, Shumaker AH, et al. Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. Clean Infect Dis. Published online on September 5, 2022. doi:10.1093/cid/ciac724
15. Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S, Cook J et al. Psychological factors of misinformation belief and resistance to correction. Nat Rev Cycol. 2022; 1:13-29. Doi: 10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y