7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Book Chapter: not found
      Library and Media Roles in Information Hygiene and Managing Information : 

      In the Heat of the COVID-19 Vaccine Apartheid

      monograph
      IGI Global

      Read this book at

      Buy book Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this book yet. Authors can add summaries to their books on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The COVID-19 pandemic and infodemic has dealt a serious blow to the progress and stability of humanity in its quest to realise a sustainable future. The position of libraries and other key stakeholders in the development equation needs a fundamental rethinking in order to build capacity to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic and its mutations. The challenges being encountered by developing countries in accessing COVID-19 vaccines serve as a wakeup call for all institutions to rethink, redefine, and restrategise how they can work in unison to provide solutions to save humanity from the effects of vaccine nationalism. The positions of all key stakeholders should resonate with the aspirations of the progressive world to ensure cooperation and camaraderie in ensuring egalitarian access to the COVID-19 vaccinations. This chapter seeks to unpack the phenomenon of the COVID-19 vaccine apartheid and raise awareness on the role of access to credible information in the wake of the pandemic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic Literature Review on the Spread of Health-related Misinformation on Social Media

          Contemporary commentators describe the current period as “an era of fake news” in which misinformation, generated intentionally or unintentionally, spreads rapidly. Although affecting all areas of life, it poses particular problems in the health arena, where it can delay or prevent effective care, in some cases threatening the lives of individuals. While examples of the rapid spread of misinformation date back to the earliest days of scientific medicine, the internet, by allowing instantaneous communication and powerful amplification has brought about a quantum change. In democracies where ideas compete in the marketplace for attention, accurate scientific information, which may be difficult to comprehend and even dull, is easily crowded out by sensationalized news. In order to uncover the current evidence and better understand the mechanism of misinformation spread, we report a systematic review of the nature and potential drivers of health-related misinformation. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus and Google databases to identify relevant methodological and empirical articles published between 2012 and 2018. A total of 57 articles were included for full-text analysis. Overall, we observe an increasing trend in published articles on health-related misinformation and the role of social media in its propagation. The most extensively studied topics involving misinformation relate to vaccination, Ebola and Zika Virus, although others, such as nutrition, cancer, fluoridation of water and smoking also featured. Studies adopted theoretical frameworks from psychology and network science, while co-citation analysis revealed potential for greater collaboration across fields. Most studies employed content analysis, social network analysis or experiments, drawing on disparate disciplinary paradigms. Future research should examine susceptibility of different sociodemographic groups to misinformation and understand the role of belief systems on the intention to spread misinformation. Further interdisciplinary research is also warranted to identify effective and tailored interventions to counter the spread of health-related misinformation online.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            COVID-19 and the Risk to Health Care Workers: A Case Report

            Background: Little is known about the effectiveness of personal protective equipment for health care workers who take care of patients infected with the novel coronavirus (SARS–CoV-2) that recently originated in China and has spread globally (1, 2). Objective: To describe the clinical outcome of health care workers who took care of a patient with severe pneumonia before the diagnosis of COVID-19 was known. Case Report: The patient was a middle-aged man with diabetes mellitus and hyperlipidemia who was hospitalized in February 2020 for community-acquired pneumonia. He had not traveled recently to China nor had had contact with anyone known to have COVID-19. He required supplemental oxygen on admission; the following day, he developed respiratory distress that required endotracheal intubation by the emergency airway team and mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU). He was transferred to the ICU for intubation and had a difficult intubation that required use of a video laryngoscope and an airway bougie. He improved clinically after 3 days of mechanical ventilation and was subsequently extubated to noninvasive ventilation. On the day that the patient was extubated, a nasopharyngeal swab was sent as part of COVID-19 surveillance, and it was positive for SARS–CoV-2 on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay (3). Two other swabs obtained on subsequent days tested positive for SARS–CoV-2. On the basis of contact tracing, 41 health care workers were identified as having exposure to aerosol-generating procedures for at least 10 minutes at a distance of less than 2 meters from the patient. The aerosol-generating procedures included endotracheal intubation, extubation, noninvasive ventilation, and exposure to aerosols in an open circuit (4). All 41 health care workers were placed under home isolation for 2 weeks, with daily monitoring for cough, dyspnea, and myalgia and twice-daily temperature measurements. In addition, they had nasopharyngeal swabs scheduled on the first day of home isolation, which could have been day 1, 2, 4, or 5 after last exposure to patient, and a second swab scheduled on day 14 after their last exposure. The swabs were tested for SARS–CoV-2 by using a PCR assay. None of the exposed health care workers developed symptoms, and all PCR tests were negative (Table). Table. Number of Nasopharyngeal Swabs in Exposed Health Care Workers, by Type of Procedure, Day After Last Exposure, and Type of Mask* Discussion: The primary route for the spread of COVID-19 is thought to be through aerosolized droplets that are expelled during coughing, sneezing, or breathing, but there also are concerns about possible airborne transmission. In the situation we describe, 85% of health care workers were exposed during an aerosol-generating procedure exposed while wearing a surgical mask, and the remainder were wearing N95 masks. That none of the health care workers in this situation acquired infection suggests that surgical masks, hand hygiene, and other standard procedures protected them from being infected. Our observation is consistent with previous studies that have been unable to show that N95 masks were superior to surgical masks for preventing influenza infection in health care workers (5). We emphasize, however, that nearly all experts recommend that health care workers wear an N95 mask or equivalent equipment while performing an aerosol-generating procedure. We recognize the limitations of this single case report and acknowledge that additional studies are necessary to determine how best to protect health care workers from becoming infected with SARS-CoV while they are providing care for patients with COVID-19.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Coronavirus: the spread of misinformation

              There has been a global rise recently in the spread of misinformation that has plagued the scientific community and public. Disconnect between scientific consensus and members of the public on topics such as vaccine safety, the shape of the earth, or climate change has existed for a number of years. However, this has progressively worsened as society has become further divided in the political climate of today. In turn, it has created an optimal environment for antiscience groups to gain footing and propagate their false theories and information. The public health crisis emerging due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) is also now beginning to feel the effects of misinformation. We stand with our colleagues Calisher et al., who recently published a statement of solidarity to fight against COVID-19 and to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture [1]. Just as the coronavirus itself, misinformation has spread far and wide, drowning out credible sources of information. Over the last couple of months, posts from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Center of Disease Control (CDC) have cumulatively only achieved several hundred thousand engagements, considerably eclipsed by hoax and conspiracy theory sites, which have amassed over 52 million. This serves to emphasise the popularity of unverified sources of information. Similarly, misinformation was widespread during the early years of the HIV epidemic. It too was plagued by conspiracy theories, rumours, and misinformation for many years, with the effects still visible in regions to this day. Many people continue to argue that HIV does not exist, or cause AIDS, and that its therapies are toxic to human health. All the arguments proposed by these deniers have been rebuked through a multitude of scientific publications and debate. Yet, they continue to persist. The influence of these false arguments can be so infectious that it can influence governmental policy, which has the potential to be fatal. This was particularly highlighted by the Mbeki South African government’s denialism of HIV in the early 2000s and their infamous rejection of the evidence surrounding the efficacy of HIV medication. In turn, thousands of mothers were denied access to antiretroviral therapies. Instead, the government promoted the unsubstantiated use of herbal remedies including garlic, beetroot, and lemon juice for AIDS treatment [2], leading to unnecessary HIV transmission, especially to children from pregnant mothers. This costs more than 300,000 lives [3]. It is important that we learn from past mistakes, and the media has a large role to play in this. It seems in a bid to increase viewership, major media organisations are creating dramatic headlines but are instead inciting panic amongst the public. Whilst healthcare professionals are still learning about the virus, the media has already begun to speculate about the potential health impact that the virus can have, and by publishing the potential worst effects of the virus, it only serves to fuel panic amongst the general public. As COVID-19 turns into full-fledged public health crisis, multiple theories regarding the virus’ origin have taken hold on the internet, all with a common theme: the virus was artificially created in a lab by a rogue government with an agenda. This misinformation originated from social media accounts and websites with no credible evidence to support their claims. These posts have amassed over 20 million engagements, rising each day, and the theories continue to gain traction and following on the internet, despite scientists from multiple nations analysing the genome of COVID-19 and coming to the decisive conclusion that the virus originated in nature from an animal source [4, 5]. If powerful and clear statements are not made denouncing and debunking these fabrications, then the impact on the populous has the potential to be devastating. Furthermore, basic information on how to reduce transmission and exposure to the virus has been muddled by uncredited sources. For example, a popular myth currently circulating is that home remedies can cure or prevent people from getting the virus. Taking vitamin C and eating garlic are being hailed as miracle remedies despite the complete lack of evidence. Whilst many of these are harmless, some have the potential to be very dangerous. One product that has gained traction on social media involves mixing sodium chlorite solution with citric acid, generating chlorine dioxide solution. The instructions then state for this powerful bleaching agent to be consumed, promising antimicrobial, antiviral, and antibacterial actions. The American Food and Drug Administration has previously served severe warnings against this, as it causes severe vomiting, life-threatening low blood pressure, and acute liver failure [6, 7]. Spread of false information drowns out credible sources and in turn results in further public confusion, ultimately leading to greater spread, and inefficient mitigation of virus transmission. In the face of a pandemic, it is important for governments to be transparent and relay clear, honest information to the public. Public confusion leaves citizens unprepared for combatting a public health crisis. Additionally, it is dangerous for politicians to politicise this pandemic. At times like this, the message from government leaders needs to be consistent so that the public can regain trust in civil servants. Governments and figures in the media should utilise the knowledge of experts, particularly from the CDC and WHO, to accurately deliver information in a sensible and precise manner so as to not incite panic amongst the public. The appearance of this virus offers an opportunity for the public and medical health professionals to fight in unity against this common threat. If health bodies appropriately manage, educate, and address the people’s concerns, there is an opportunity to bridge the level of distrust that has arisen by antiscience movements in recent times.
                Bookmark

                Author and book information

                Book Chapter
                June 24 2022
                : 146-170
                10.4018/978-1-7998-8713-3.ch008
                3697b38f-81ac-4b97-a657-5d6c2a85b20a
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this book

                Book chapters

                Similar content1,154