COVID-19 大流行期间的零病毒宣传:Twitter/X 上观点的案例研究。

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS
Kasper P Kepp, Kevin Bardosh, Tijl De Bie, Louise Emilsson, Justin Greaves, Tea Lallukka, Taulant Muka, J Christian Rangel, Niclas Sandström, Michaéla C Schippers, Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, Tracy Vaillancourt
{"title":"COVID-19 大流行期间的零病毒宣传:Twitter/X 上观点的案例研究。","authors":"Kasper P Kepp, Kevin Bardosh, Tijl De Bie, Louise Emilsson, Justin Greaves, Tea Lallukka, Taulant Muka, J Christian Rangel, Niclas Sandström, Michaéla C Schippers, Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, Tracy Vaillancourt","doi":"10.1007/s40592-024-00205-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>During the COVID-19 pandemic, many advocacy groups and individuals criticized governments on social media for doing either too much or too little to mitigate the pandemic. In this article, we review advocacy for COVID-19 elimination or \"zero-covid\" on the social media platform X (Twitter). We present a thematic analysis of tweets by 20 influential co-signatories of the World Health Network letter on ten themes, covering six topics of science and mitigation (zero-covid, epidemiological data on variants, long-term post-acute sequelae (Long COVID), vaccines, schools and children, views on monkeypox/Mpox) and four advocacy methods (personal advice and promoting remedies, use of anecdotes, criticism of other scientists, and of authorities). The advocacy, although timely and informative, often appealed to emotions and values using anecdotes and strong criticism of authorities and other scientists. Many tweets received hundreds or thousands of likes. Risks were emphasized about children's vulnerability, Long COVID, variant severity, and Mpox, and via comparisons with human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV). Far-reaching policies and promotion of remedies were advocated without systematic evidence review, or sometimes, core field expertise. We identified potential conflicts of interest connected to private companies. Our study documents a need for public health debates to be less polarizing and judgmental, and more factual. In order to protect public trust in science during a crisis, we suggest the development of mechanisms to ensure ethical guidelines for engagement in \"science-based\" advocacy, and consideration of cost-benefit analysis of recommendations for public health decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Zero-covid advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of views on Twitter/X.\",\"authors\":\"Kasper P Kepp, Kevin Bardosh, Tijl De Bie, Louise Emilsson, Justin Greaves, Tea Lallukka, Taulant Muka, J Christian Rangel, Niclas Sandström, Michaéla C Schippers, Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, Tracy Vaillancourt\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40592-024-00205-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>During the COVID-19 pandemic, many advocacy groups and individuals criticized governments on social media for doing either too much or too little to mitigate the pandemic. In this article, we review advocacy for COVID-19 elimination or \\\"zero-covid\\\" on the social media platform X (Twitter). We present a thematic analysis of tweets by 20 influential co-signatories of the World Health Network letter on ten themes, covering six topics of science and mitigation (zero-covid, epidemiological data on variants, long-term post-acute sequelae (Long COVID), vaccines, schools and children, views on monkeypox/Mpox) and four advocacy methods (personal advice and promoting remedies, use of anecdotes, criticism of other scientists, and of authorities). The advocacy, although timely and informative, often appealed to emotions and values using anecdotes and strong criticism of authorities and other scientists. Many tweets received hundreds or thousands of likes. Risks were emphasized about children's vulnerability, Long COVID, variant severity, and Mpox, and via comparisons with human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV). Far-reaching policies and promotion of remedies were advocated without systematic evidence review, or sometimes, core field expertise. We identified potential conflicts of interest connected to private companies. Our study documents a need for public health debates to be less polarizing and judgmental, and more factual. In order to protect public trust in science during a crisis, we suggest the development of mechanisms to ensure ethical guidelines for engagement in \\\"science-based\\\" advocacy, and consideration of cost-benefit analysis of recommendations for public health decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monash Bioethics Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monash Bioethics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-024-00205-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-024-00205-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在 COVID-19 大流行期间,许多倡导团体和个人在社交媒体上批评政府在缓解疫情方面做得太多或太少。在本文中,我们回顾了社交媒体平台 X(Twitter)上关于消除 COVID-19 或 "零 COVID "的倡议。我们对世界卫生网络信件中 20 个有影响力的共同署名者的推文进行了专题分析,这些推文涉及 10 个主题,涵盖 6 个科学和缓解主题(零感染、变异体的流行病学数据、长期急性后遗症(Long COVID)、疫苗、学校和儿童、对猴痘/天花的看法)和 4 种宣传方法(个人建议和推广补救措施、使用轶事、批评其他科学家和权威人士)。宣传虽然及时且信息量大,但往往利用趣闻轶事和对权威人士和其他科学家的强烈批评来唤起人们的情感和价值观。许多推文获得了数百或数千个赞。通过与人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)的比较,强调了儿童易感性、长 COVID、变异严重性和 Mpox 的风险。在没有系统性证据审查,有时甚至没有核心领域专业知识的情况下,就鼓吹影响深远的政策和推广补救措施。我们发现了与私营公司有关的潜在利益冲突。我们的研究表明,公共卫生辩论需要减少两极分化和评判性,更注重事实。为了在危机期间保护公众对科学的信任,我们建议建立相关机制,确保参与 "以科学为基础 "的宣传活动符合道德准则,并考虑对公共卫生决策建议进行成本效益分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Zero-covid advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of views on Twitter/X.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many advocacy groups and individuals criticized governments on social media for doing either too much or too little to mitigate the pandemic. In this article, we review advocacy for COVID-19 elimination or "zero-covid" on the social media platform X (Twitter). We present a thematic analysis of tweets by 20 influential co-signatories of the World Health Network letter on ten themes, covering six topics of science and mitigation (zero-covid, epidemiological data on variants, long-term post-acute sequelae (Long COVID), vaccines, schools and children, views on monkeypox/Mpox) and four advocacy methods (personal advice and promoting remedies, use of anecdotes, criticism of other scientists, and of authorities). The advocacy, although timely and informative, often appealed to emotions and values using anecdotes and strong criticism of authorities and other scientists. Many tweets received hundreds or thousands of likes. Risks were emphasized about children's vulnerability, Long COVID, variant severity, and Mpox, and via comparisons with human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV). Far-reaching policies and promotion of remedies were advocated without systematic evidence review, or sometimes, core field expertise. We identified potential conflicts of interest connected to private companies. Our study documents a need for public health debates to be less polarizing and judgmental, and more factual. In order to protect public trust in science during a crisis, we suggest the development of mechanisms to ensure ethical guidelines for engagement in "science-based" advocacy, and consideration of cost-benefit analysis of recommendations for public health decision-making.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信