Written by Kyne Wang, Designed by Shaan Patel

Designed by Shaan Patel

Stores shut. Streets cleared to an eerie silence. Hospitals prepared to lay siege. A new coronavirus was wreaking havoc in several countries, catching the healthcare system off guard and startling all. It was like SARS all over again.

THE INFODEMIC

The impact of the 2003 SARS epidemic was most notable in its influence on mask-wearing.1 Following the epidemic, mask-wearing became embedded in everyday practice.²

When COVID-19 came to prominence, the SARS-affected countries armed their people. Masks become ubiquitous as both a measure of personal protection and social responsibility.³ Healthcare communication was unified. Masks were already the social norm in these countries.4 In others, masks became a symbol and catalyst of the politicization of science in the media.

Misinformation during COVID-19 perpetuates poor responses to the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has been paired with the term “infodemic”—a global spread of health misinformation.5 The pandemic is revealing not only disparities in national crises communication but also cultural differences, with countries responding differently to the pandemic.6 Misinformation scales with popularity, as masks have been a primary source of discussion around its efficacy as personal protection from the virus.5 According to the Pew Research Center, 52% of Americans rely on social media for news, and nearly half the public said they have been exposed to some misinformation about the virus.7 In countries with a large several news outlets, highly polarized environments are contributing to a plethora of misinformation regarding COVID-19 in an increasingly politicized media ecosystem.8 Is striving for complete transparency undermining the U.S. response to the pandemic?

As outlets for sharing information have grown exponentially in the last decade, many wonder how that affects the quality of the information itself. In many instances, the plethora of information outlets have made it significantly easier to amplify concerns, but when pushed beyond its boundaries, this amplification leads to hysteria.

OPPOSITE APPROACHES ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE WORLD

The most common contrasts in approaches to the pandemic are drawn between China and the United States. In China, the tight control on information has raised eyebrows internationally. Misinformation was strictly dismissed and disciplined, usually leading to a complete eradication of the information source. In the beginning of the pandemic, Li Wenliang, a Wuhan doctor, tried to warn fellow professionals of a disease that was reminiscent of the 2003 SARS coronavirus; he was briskly silenced by police, being told to “stop making false comments” and immediately investigated for spreading rumors.9,10

From one side of the aisle, this may be another representation of the ramifications of authoritarianism. As the 2003 SARS outbreak also originated in China, some argue that the cover-up was a strategy to avoid tarnishing international reputation. On the other side, this initial censorship can be viewed as a precaution—simply waiting for more information. Whatever the true motives were, China’s censorship succeeded in shifting the nation away from accusations of cover-ups to a call for strength and condemnation of misinformation.10 This was similar to China’s 2003 approach to SARS, a devastating

outbreak not too long ago.1 A study published in the Journal of Tropical Medicine and International Health deduced that for a new, rapidly spreading disease that did not respond to traditional/pre-existing medicine, traditional public health measures took precedent.1 In 2003, China declared a “People’s War,” mobilizing the masses in a collective effort to stem the spread of the disease.1 Collectivism manifested itself through mask-wearing and local monitoring. A people’s surveillance system was initiated, where family and neighbors monitored each other to ensure the containment of SARS cases.1 Fast forward to COVID-19, an appeal to unity was evident in the compliance of the public with public health recommendations. The lack of transparency in the Chinese media ecosystem served as a filter, allowing only for the scientific information that was deemed reliable and relevant to enter society. Although this lack of transparency challenges the accuracy of their COVID-19 case/death counts, the country has undoubtedly returned to normal life. Regardless of the data on mask-effi- cacy or case/death counts from China deemed accurate, it is evident that the control of information has led to calmness for most Chinese citizens. On the other side of the world, the United States has been a highlight in the global response to COVID-19.14 With the leading number of cases and deaths, the United States is experiencing a back-andforth rally between science and politics. Over time, as stated by President Barack Obama, “we have watched as scientific integrity is undermined and politicized to advance political agendas.” Science has always been intertwined in U.S. politics, however: The culturally accepted neutrality of science as an industry is unequivocally leveraged to build consensus within polarized environments.15 In COVID-19, public health information was delivered through the White House, a symbol of partisan divide—especially during a turbulent 2020 election season.16 Although this may have been an attempt at uniformity, the free-media environment overrides the credibility of the appeal to unity.

The free-media landscape in the United States has perpetuated mass hysteria during COVID-19. As stated in an International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health article, the resulting hysteria may have contributed to policy errors by governments not in line with health recommendations: potentially to reduce panic and downplay aspects of the pandemic to maintain control and unity.17 Information is transparent in the United States in comparison to China, but has this played a role in diluting

Source: Getty Images12

For Mimi Zainal, a mother of two children, "I prefer the kids to wear masks... it gives me a peace of mind to know they are more protected," she says.11

China’s brisk response to mandating public health measures in a manner deemed authoritarian by the West has led to lowcase counts for more than a year.

the significance of the pandemic? It is an unchallenged notion that science constantly moves forward to shed truth and debunk falsehoods of the path; this was evident in the onset of the pandemic in the United States—especially with mask-policy. Mask-efficacy has been a primary source of debate in the early months of the pandemic. Initially, the Surgeon General of the United States implored the public to “STOP BUYING MASKS!”14 The CDC initially deemed it unnecessary to wear a mask until reversing its position in July of 2020.14 As politicians called for action, portraying their voices as a symbol of reliability to their constituents, a partisan divide began to form: A Pew Research Center study found that 39% of Republicans in comparison to 11% of Democrats found that news coverage is “largely inaccurate,” exacerbating the polarization of information.18 Transparency in the industry has been traditionally regarded as a symbol of pursuing the truth, advancing society one step at a time. But when science mixes with society, it is important that uniformity is approached with more emphasis.

We have seen two contrasting approaches to communicating information during COVID-19 emerge: centralized control in China and mostly unregulated dissemination as seen in the United States. Both have key benefits and drawbacks that are crucial to take into consideration for actions forward:

First introduced by Cornell Professor of Psychology Dr. Stephen J. Ceci, Ceci proposes a multi-entity review process from various sources from, usually opposing, ends of the political spectrum.19 As “adversaries,” agreements on the factuality of a matter bears much more merit than the social media platform itself.21 With claims being aggressively fact-checked by teams of individuals with diverse political positions, anything other than agreement can prompt readers to critically analyze how persuasive each side’s argument is in hopes to arrive at a more informed.21

Government policies, like those governing hate speech, should regulate that social media platforms allow multiple entities to evaluate the credibility and truth of a claim and then flag it if deemed misinformation. These entities must be clearly visible on each flag and have appropriate markers indicating political bias. Not so different from journal peer-reviewing, adversarial fact-checking will assist in neutralizing the social media landscape and differentiate fact from falsehood by accommodating fact-checking input from both sides of the aisle.

A distinction should be made between transparency in science and healthcare. Transparency in science promotes innovation and development, whereas transparency in healthcare enters a grey area of how to shape the public’s interpretation of certain information. During a public health crisis, it may be more important to ensure unity of information over transparency. Transparency helps shed truth, but it also yields a great opportunity for misinformation.

Benefits Centralized Unified front with uniformity in communication and perception

Free Unrestricted sharing of information, drawing from multiple perspectives and resources Drawbacks Reduction of free speech and lack of transparency Prone to misinformation and polarization