{"title":"\"This was never about a virus\": Perceptions of Vaccination Hazards and Pandemic Risk in #Covid19NZ Tweets.","authors":"Maebh Long, Andreea Calude, Jessie Burnette","doi":"10.1007/s10912-024-09859-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this paper, we draw on qualitative methods from the medical humanities and quantitative approaches from corpus linguistics to assess the different mappings of pandemic risks by Twitter (X) users employing the #Covid19nz hashtag. We look specifically at their responses to government measures around vaccines between August and November 2021. Risk, we reveal, was a major discursive thread in tweets during this period, but within our tweets, it was the vaccine rather than the virus around which hazard perception and response were grouped. We find that the discursive stance of those opposed to the vaccine evoked entangled medical and political hazards, untrustworthy experts, obscure information, restrictions on sovereignty, threats to children, and uncertain future dangers, all of which positioned them within what Ulrich Beck termed the world risk society. We also found that these narratives of risk manifested in specific Twitter styles, which employed a consistently larger number of hashtags. The lack of conjunctions between the hashtags, we argue, encouraged a disordered reading of doubt and precaution, as the hashtags presented triggering phrases whose interconnections were hinted at rather than specified. By contrast, those who tweeted in support of government measures were rhetorically led by solutions rather than risks, with one exception: their perception of those who were vaccine opposed. We use scholarship on risk and precautionary logic to map out the contrasting positions in tweets addressing Aotearoa New Zealand's pandemic experience during the closing months of 2021.</p>","PeriodicalId":45518,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Humanities","volume":" ","pages":"115-140"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11805863/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-024-09859-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In this paper, we draw on qualitative methods from the medical humanities and quantitative approaches from corpus linguistics to assess the different mappings of pandemic risks by Twitter (X) users employing the #Covid19nz hashtag. We look specifically at their responses to government measures around vaccines between August and November 2021. Risk, we reveal, was a major discursive thread in tweets during this period, but within our tweets, it was the vaccine rather than the virus around which hazard perception and response were grouped. We find that the discursive stance of those opposed to the vaccine evoked entangled medical and political hazards, untrustworthy experts, obscure information, restrictions on sovereignty, threats to children, and uncertain future dangers, all of which positioned them within what Ulrich Beck termed the world risk society. We also found that these narratives of risk manifested in specific Twitter styles, which employed a consistently larger number of hashtags. The lack of conjunctions between the hashtags, we argue, encouraged a disordered reading of doubt and precaution, as the hashtags presented triggering phrases whose interconnections were hinted at rather than specified. By contrast, those who tweeted in support of government measures were rhetorically led by solutions rather than risks, with one exception: their perception of those who were vaccine opposed. We use scholarship on risk and precautionary logic to map out the contrasting positions in tweets addressing Aotearoa New Zealand's pandemic experience during the closing months of 2021.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Medical Humanities publishes original papers that reflect its enlarged focus on interdisciplinary inquiry in medicine and medical education. Such inquiry can emerge in the following ways: (1) from the medical humanities, which includes literature, history, philosophy, and bioethics as well as those areas of the social and behavioral sciences that have strong humanistic traditions; (2) from cultural studies, a multidisciplinary activity involving the humanities; women''s, African-American, and other critical studies; media studies and popular culture; and sociology and anthropology, which can be used to examine medical institutions, practice and education with a special focus on relations of power; and (3) from pedagogical perspectives that elucidate what and how knowledge is made and valued in medicine, how that knowledge is expressed and transmitted, and the ideological basis of medical education.