Social Media and Zero-COVID: The Use of Anecdotes, Harsh Criticism, and the Call for Systematic Review

COVID-19 pandemic has provoked vigorous debate about many strategies, and probably the most controversial of all is the “zero-COVID” approach that calls for fully eradicating the virus. In a recent international study led by Dr. Kasper P. Kepp and involving researchers from Epistuda, published in the Monash Bioethics Review, this discussion is carefully dissected and scrutinized with special attention to how zero-COVID supporters have used social media to advance these arguments.

The study, analyzes the tweets of 20 influential zero-COVID advocates in Twitter (now X). The focus of these advocates included vaccine effectiveness, Long COVID and children. While the tweets might have emotional resonance and be widely engaged with, the study underlines several problems.

One important finding was that evidence shared by the advocates was based on anectodal evidence and not based on systematic reviews and meta-analysis which are the highest level of evidence. Members of the zero-COVID produced many tweets that relied on anecdotal accounts (for example, a 10-year-old Suffolk girl who is believed to have died after being advised to walk with poorly children) as opposed to robust scientific evidence. As moving as the above stories are, personal narratives that tug on our heartstrings still fail to meet the standards of an evidence-based public health recommendation.

Additionally, their rhetoric got harsh attack on the opponents. University professors, for example, would be labelled faithfully derogated “a sick man,” “useless excuse for a researcher,” or even (rarer) “miserable human” merely by virtue of being critical of the zero-COVID stance. This had the effect of casting doubt on the reputation and marginalized the voices of constructive critics by calling them all sorts of things from 'idiots' to 'pseudoscience,' making sure that no counter-narrative would stand up.

Moreover, the study identifies potential conflicts of interest of the advocates, particularly with ties to private companies, which may further compromise the quality of public health discourse.

To address these issues, the study underscores the need for a more balanced, evidence-based approach to public health debates. Developing ethical guidelines for science-based advocacy and ensuring recommendations are grounded in systematic reviews and meta-analysis rather than anecdotal evidence are crucial steps. As we continue to navigate the complexities of global health crises, fostering respectful, fact-based discussions will be essential for maintaining public trust and making informed decisions.