在COVID-19大流行期间,许多倡导团体和个人批评政府在社交媒体上为减轻疫情做得太多或太少。在这篇文章中,我们在社交媒体平台X(Twitter)上回顾了消除COVID-19或“零covid”的宣传。我们对世界卫生网络信函的20个有影响力的共同签署者在十个主题上的推文进行了主题分析,涵盖科学和缓解的六个主题(零covid,关于变异的流行病学数据,长期急性后遗症(长型COVID),疫苗,学校和儿童,关于猴痘/水痘的意见)和四种宣传方法(个人建议和推广补救措施,使用轶事,对其他科学家的批评,和当局)。倡导,虽然及时和翔实,经常利用轶事和对当局和其他科学家的强烈批评来吸引情感和价值观。许多推文收到了数百或数千个赞。强调了儿童脆弱性的风险,长COVID,变异严重性,和水痘,并通过与人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)的比较。在没有系统证据审查的情况下,提倡深远的政策和促进补救措施,或者有时,核心领域专业知识。我们确定了与私营公司相关的潜在利益冲突。我们的研究表明,公共卫生辩论需要减少两极分化和判断力,更真实。为了在危机期间保护公众对科学的信任,我们建议发展机制,以确保参与“基于科学”的倡导的道德准则,并考虑了公共卫生决策建议的成本效益分析。
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.