Disinformation and Conspiracy Theories in the Age of COVID-19

Abstract

Since the 11th of March 2020, the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been declared a global pandemic by the (World Health Organization, 2020). The disease is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 and was first officially reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 (Zhu et al., 2020). Since then, COVID-19 has spread globally with millions of laboratory-confirmed cases and hundreds of thousands of deaths (Relief Web, 2020). So far, there is no specific treatment for the disease and many research teams are currently working on a vaccine that, optimistically, will only be available to the public in 2021. Meanwhile, the recommendation from health authorities is to adopt nonpharmaceutical interventions such as travel restrictions, school closures, social distancing, washing hands, and wearing face masks. Though these emergency measures are certainly inconvenient, social distancing has been proven historically effective in reducing and delaying infection rates and mortality on previous influenza pandemics (1918 and 2009) (Ahmed et al., 2018) while face masks minimize the risk of spreading viral particles through respiratory droplets (Leung et al., 2020). In short, the greater part of the success of mitigation strategies depends on individual responsibilities for implementing the recommended personal-level actions. Unfortunately, however, social distancing guidelines against COVID-19 have become a political hot topic and compliance has roughly been defined along ideological lines: conservatives are less probable to adhere to them than liberals (Rothgerber et al., 2020). To complicate matters, there has been a flood of conspiracy theories and false news about COVID-19. For instance, the conspiracy theory that the coronavirus is a laboratory-engineered bioweapon created by the Chinese started in January 2020 and was spread, bot-like, in Twitter by mostly right-wing and conservative profiles (Graham et al., 2020). While conspiracy theories are not the preserve of the ideological left or right, they are more common at ideological extremes and certainly strongest at the extreme right (Sutton and Douglas, 2020). The appeal of conspiracy theories is that they often serve as a “radicalizing multiplier” (Bartlett and Miller, 2010) for fringe groups while offering an easy explanation for complex issues (Marchlewska et al., 2018), thus satisfying people's need for cognitive closure (Kruglanski and Fishman, 2009). However, as seen with “the stab in the back” myth in Germany after the end of WWI, for instance, the unchallenged dissemination of conspiracy theories and false news can posit a great risk to democracy (Ardèvol-Abreu et al., 2020). Aided by the existence of modern information networks powered by the internet, coordinated disinformation campaigns disseminating conspiracy theories, false news, and health hoaxes, are more common than ever. Conspiracy theories usually have a system-justifying function of supporting the status quo by redirecting the public attention toward imaginary perils and distracting from genuine threats (Eco, 2014; Jolley et al., 2018). Health hoaxes and false news also sidetrack demands for adequate and science-backed solutions to fight the pandemic and its consequences, such as investment on vaccine development, adequate hospital infrastructure (ventilators, ICU units, etc.), and financial relief programs. Some conservative political leaders have regularly stressed the link between the adoption of social distancing guidelines with negative effects on the economy, even though there is evidence from the 1918 influenza pandemic that US cities that moved more aggressively to limit interactions among the public fared much better economically afterward than cities which were laxer (Correia et al., 2020). To justify the end of lockdowns, some have also promoted the use of unproven therapeutic methods, such as Chloroquine (CQ)/hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), to treat COVID-19 (Guzman-Prado, 2020). CQ was proposed in the 1930s as a drug to treat malaria (Peters, 1971), which is still the deadliest infectious disease in the world. HCQ was later introduced as a less toxic version of the drug and was approved to treat autoimmune diseases (Ben-Zvi et al., 2012). CQ and HCQ garnered worldwide attention as promising candidates to treat COVID-19 in early February 2020 after the publication of reports showing in vitro activity of CQ against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Wang et al., 2020). Subsequently, several randomized controlled clinical trials were initiated but none was able to prove its efficacy against COVID-19 (Recovery, 2020) and some were halted due to the possibility of harmful side effects. Meanwhile, beginning on 19 Mar 2020, President Donald Trump promoted the use of CQ/HCQ as a game-changer against COVID-19. Other conservative leaders around the world followed suit and began promoting the use of the drugs in their own countries as well. In the USA, the hype with chloroquine was short-lived due to counter-recommendations from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (US FDA, 2020), but in other countries, such as Brazil, it never went away due to official support for its use (See Figure 1). As shown in Figure 1 comparing the US with two other countries in the Americas (Argentina and Brazil), Google searches for CQ/HCQ spiked in response to President Trump's press meeting on 19 Mar 2020 not only in the US but in both Argentina and Brazil. Afterward, the number of searches subsided, except in Brazil, where government officials have promoted CQ/HCQ as a valid therapy against COVID-19 even though there is no availability of clinical trial data regarding its safety and efficacy (Chowdhury et al., 2020). Figure 1. The arrow marks the day that U.S. President Donald Trump held a news briefing saying the government would make the drug available “almost immediately” to treat COVID-19 (03/19/20). On...