At the beginning of the pandemic we thought the virus could only spread via droplets (1). But now we know that much smaller particles, known as aerosols, can carry the virus too (2,3).
Like milk, there’s a reason some information goes bad or changes. The main reason is that our knowledge and understanding of the virus are also changing, or evolving (4,5).
@statcan_eng found that most Canadians will look for other sources or will read the full article to confirm the information they found online is correct. But only 29% will check when the article was published (6).
This can be a problem because misinformers sometimes use old information as proof to fit their narrative, even though our understanding of the subject has deepened over time (4,7).
So yes, dates are important, especially in the always changing COVID-19 world, and there is nothing wrong with changing your tune if it is supported by evidence! Before you share any piece of information, always make sure to check if newer information is available.
Share this with your friends to make sure they share only the most up-to-date information!
Share our original Tweet!
Does information go bad, like milk?
Yes!
Keep reading to learn why you should always check the dates.#ScienceUpFirst
When science communication is available in multiple languages it reaches more people and is way more effective (1). That’s one of the many reasons we are thrilled to partner with Lotus STEMM!
Lotus STEMM (@lotusstemm) is a not-for-profit organization that seeks to support and improve the representation of South Asian women in traditional and non-traditional STEMM professions (did you know that STEMM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine?).
They provide much-needed multilingual COVID-19 science communication for South Asian communities, especially during the heightened confusion about mandates and conflicting misinformation. And when we say multilingual, we mean it! They’ve created informative YouTube videos in a total of 11 different languages (2)!
We’re very excited to support Lotus STEMM by providing COVID-19 science communication content from our ScienceUpFirst accounts! Our posts are being translated into Farsi, Hindi, Pashto, Sinhala, Tamil, and Urdu by their extensive network of volunteers (3), all for the best impact and cultural relevance.
We look forward to our ongoing partnership with Lotus STEMM in their valuable work to engage South Asian women and girls (and their communities) in STEMM.
Share our original Tweet!
When science communication is in multiple languages it can reach more people and is WAY more effective.
You know what they say… beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing… or lions in zebra stripes.
Or… accounts that share antivax content using blue and yellow graphics and the hashtag #ScienceUpFirst. Clearly they’re trying to capitalize on the trust we’ve built with our colours and style.
A common tactic used by misinformers and scam artists is to appear legit by putting on the trappings of real information sources.
It’s a versatile and effective tactic. Here are some things to watch out for:
When an account uses misleading, emotive names and hashtags that include phrases like “truth” and “freedom”
Overusing scientific jargon incorrectly to appear well-informed. For example, “The quantum interference of neural antibodies coagulates the blood serum, leading to antibody rejection and histocompatibility errors.”
Using similar URLs or account names that could be easily mistyped.
Want to learn more?
Check out Get Bad News, a game developed by researchers in the UK and Sweden that lets you try your hand at being an impostor online: https://getbadnews.com
Evaluations of the game show that learning about these tactics with fake examples actually innoculates you against the real thing: https://tinyurl.com/SUFBadNews
Thanks to Jordan Collver for collaborating with us on this post. Jordan is an illustrator and science communicator specializing in using the visual and narrative power of comics to explore themes of science, nature, and belief.
You know what they say, beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Or… antivax accounts that share content w/ our hashtag and blue/yellow graphics, trying to capitalize on the trust we’ve built with our style #ScienceUpFirst
When COVID-19 was first reported in early 2020, not much was known about the disease. It was a virus-borne respiratory illness, featuring flu-like symptoms such as fever, cough, aches, and shortness of breath. Early estimates of its case fatality rate (CFR) were lower than SARS and MERS, and its rate of spread roughly the same as the flu. It was generally assumed that transmission was primarily through respiratory droplets, and possibly direct contact, as is the case for many other common respiratory diseases. Doesn’t sound so bad, does it?
Is COVID-19 “like the flu” or “like Ebola”?
Comparing COVID-19 to the flu indeed “anchored” many to the idea that COVID-19 is “no big deal”, despite quickly updating analyses suggesting a much higher fatality rate, a high reproduction rate, evidence of airborne spread, asymptomatic transmission, and long-COVID symptoms. Indeed, a later survey by Southwell et al 2020 showed: “Past influenza vaccination behavior predicted willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine in the future among Americans.” That is, despite newer information about the severity of COVID-19, respondents continued to anchor their decisions to the flu.
Now imagine that instead of the flu, early reports compared COVID-19 to a more fear-inducing disease: It is a virus-borne respiratory illness, featuring Ebola-like symptoms such as fever, sore throat, aches, and fatigue. It is far deadlier than Ebola, with a similar reproduction rate. Unlike Ebola however, which is mostly transmitted through direct contact, COVID-19 is a respiratory disease that can also be transmitted through respiratory droplets, and is potentially airborne. A little more terrifying now? All of this information was available early on in the pandemic, and the disease could just as easily have been compared to Ebola as it was to the flu. Do you think this might have affected social distancing, masking, or vaccine uptake?
Anchors aweigh!
The order in which information is presented is important because the human brain naturally favours earlier information over evidence provided later. This phenomenon is called the anchoring effect :
“The anchoring effect is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered”
It’s not that people don’t adjust their initial impressions at all, but rather that they under-adjust given new information – this is why the bias is sometimes referred to as the anchor-and-adjust heuristic.
One of the most common ways to study this is to tell people how difficult a task is before asking them how well they think they’ll do. Given the same task, people primed to think it will be hard (a low anchor) will rate themselves as less able and then will give up quicker than those who were primed to think it would be easy (a high anchor).
There has also been lots of research in the economic sphere. The anchoring effect is responsible for your brain thinking something that’s on sale for $80 down from $100 is better than the same item just listed for $80 originally.
In one famous experiment, students were asked to write down the last two digits of their social security number and then rate how much they would pay for certain items. Those with higher numbers said they would pay more than those with lower social security numbers.
However, public views were slow to adjust from initial impressions (image from Li et al, 2022). The graph below shows the willingness to wear a mask in the USA (blue) and in China (red). In the USA, where mask-wearing was not the norm before, it took almost 6 months for public perception to catch up to the science.
The study authors speculate:
“… prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans had very low expectations that wearing masks would protect against seasonal influenza. This low perceived efficacy may be one key reason for the slow adoption of mask wearing by our U.S. participants early in the pandemic. However, as scientific evidence accumulated and authorities began to clearly endorse mask wearing, most U.S. participants became more willing to wear masks in public space.”
The good news from this study is that views do adjust, eventually. In general, the science and public health communications experts suggest leveraging trust, expert opinion, consistent messaging, and audience-specific messages, as best practices in science communication.
Written by Anthony Morgan
Edited by Jon Farrow
Share our original Tweet!
Thought experiment:
What if, in January 2020, headlines read:
“There’s a new virus with symptoms like Ebola: Fever, sore throat, aches, and fatigue.” #ScienceUpFirst
A new study investigated how the “characteristics of misinformation” is different from factual sources. The author’s found misinformation content is easier to understand, emotional, and negative. What does this mean? While all misinformation is harmful, different types of misinformation occur, and we can’t “treat all misinformation equally.” (May 9, 2022)
The COVID-19 pandemic is labelled an “infodemic” of misinformation, in which scientific findings have led to conflicts, partly fueled by disinformation from “politically motivated actors” that may “distort public perception of scientific evidence.” A recent study suggests in such cases, “misleading and inappropriate argumentation must be identified” so “they can be used to inoculate the public against their effects.” (May 5, 2022)
Out: Chickenpox parties In: The chickenpox vaccine!
Keep reading to join in on the chickenpox mythbusting party as we break down some of the stickiest misunderstandings about Varicella-Zoster.
Share our original Tweet!
Out: Chickenpox parties
In: The chickenpox vaccine!
Keep reading to join in on the chickenpox mythbusting party as we break down some of the stickiest misunderstandings about Varicella-Zoster. #ScienceUpFirst#NIAW2022
Interventions that encourage social media users to check the accuracy of the news they share online reduces the sharing of false headlines and increases the sharing of quality news sources. The implications of the study, published in Nature Communications, suggests that reminding online users to check the quality of the news they share can reduce the spread of misinformation. (April 28, 2022)
Follow these tips to help stop the spread of misinformation!
Scroll on past that rage-inducing post! When we are angry we’re worse at spotting misinformation. Plus, posts that trigger big negative emotions are more likely to go viral. Take a deep breath and let it gooooo!! ☃️❄️
Stop! Before you share a post to stories, ask yourself, “is this true?” This tiny adjustment can have a big impact on the amount of misinformation that you spread.
Read past headlines. Before you share, make sure you are getting the full scoop.
Share this post in your stories as a friendly PSA to your friends and family.
Worried a friend is caught in a web of conspiracy theories?
First up, that’s really tough and we are sorry
The good news is, people change their minds everyday. We break down the appeal of conspiracy theories and how to offer the people you care about a way out.
Share our original Tweet!
People don’t just wake up one morning convinced “globalists run the Internet.” ️
To get to that point, they need to travel down the rabbit hole. ️
So what drives people towards conspiracy theories and extremism?#ScienceUpFirst
Have you ever found yourself yelling at the screen, ready to unleash a flurry of facts and logic on a troll?
Getting into a heated exchange online might feel good in the moment, but it can also amplify negative messages in the algorithm. Instead, spend time interacting with posts you really like. A like, comment, share or save can give good content a real boost!
Saw something online that you think is misinformation? Instead of sharing the link, take a screenshot and share that with a link to the correct information/ fact check.
Put these tips into action and like, save, share, and send this post so we can fight misinformation, together.
Share our original Tweet!
Your time online is valuable. ⌛
Getting into a twitter beef with a misinformer might feel good in the moment, but it might also amplify their bad take. Block and scroll on!#ScienceUpFirstpic.twitter.com/9DPEOc0W3M
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced'Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) February 24, 2022
Misinformers will often present only two choices. This or that. Black or white.
This is the logical fallacy of false dichotomies. The truth is there are usually several options and a lot of nuance that gets left out.
Share our original Tweet!
Misinformers often present only 2 choices. This or that.
But two seemingly opposite ideas can be true!
Come with us on a journey across the pandemic’s most popular false dichotomies. ️ And learn how the world is more nuanced than this vs that.#ScienceUpFirst
Last month we put out a series of Misinformer Tactics
Here is a recap of common Misinformer Tactics so you can be on the lookout!
Astroturfing. This practice gives the *appearance* of grassroots, authentic support but is really operated by just a few individuals.
False Dichotomies. Misinformers will often present options as black or white. But in reality there are many different shades of grey.
Red Herring. This tactic distracts from the point at hand to redirect the conversation. Feeling misdirected? Ask whether the information provided is relevant.
Appeal to Nature. We have a bias towards things that appear to be “natural”. But natural isn’t always better and this bias can lead us down some dangerous roads.
Causal Fallacy. When we see: A followed by B; our brains want to jump to: A caused B. But that is not always the case. Correlation does not equal causation!
Look through to see the amazing illustrations created by Jordan Collver (@JordanCollver on Twitter)
Share our original Tweet!
Beware of the fake news trap!
Last month we put out a series of Misinformer Tactics in collaboration with the amazing illustrator Jordan Collver (@JordanCollver).
