Next Article in Journal
COVID-19 Health Literacy, Coping Strategies and Perception of COVID-19 Containment Measures Among Community Members in a Southwestern State in Nigeria
Previous Article in Journal
Use of High-Dose Ciprofloxacin for Recurrent Biofilm-Forming Multidrug-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Bacteremia
 
 
GERMS is published by MDPI from Volume 15 Issue 4 (2025). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with the former publisher Infection Science Forum.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

COVID-19: The Pseudo-Environment and the Need for a Paradigm Change

by
Richard A. Stein
1,*,
Oana Ometa
2 and
Thomas R. Broker
3
1
NYU Tandon School of Engineering, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 6 MetroTech Center, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA
2
Department of Journalism and Digital Media, Faculty of Political, Administrative and Communication Sciences, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
3
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294-0024, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
GERMS 2021, 11(4), 468-477; https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2021.1283
Submission received: 29 September 2021 / Revised: 29 October 2021 / Accepted: 29 November 2021 / Published: 29 December 2021
As the COVID-19 pandemic was gripping the world, attention coalesced around the cautiously optimistic prospect that at least one of the >150 vaccine candidates at various stages of development as of July 2020 would be successful [1,2]. As of late 2021, four vaccines were authorized by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and three of them were authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency use, the first of which received full FDA approval in August 2021 and was approved for children over five years old in November 2021 [3,4,5,6]. The effectiveness and safety of these vaccines set the path for changing the course of the pandemic, bringing a glimpse of hope for the first time in many months.
We owe the development of these highly effective vaccines to the convergence of multiple favorable factors. These include advances in molecular epidemiology, biotechnology, and cooperation across international research networks, which enabled the first genomic information of SARS-CoV-2 to become available on January 10, 2020, just 54 days after the first declared case [7,8,9]; massive contributions from private and public funds that fueled research and development [10,11,12]; the establishment of several corporate and public health partnerships [13,14,15]; and the use of a broad range of technology platforms to evaluate vaccines [16]. Several steps in vaccine research and development were staggered and/or run in parallel, even before the outcome of the previous step was confirmed [17,18,19]; knowledge from studies on previous coronaviruses [17,20] and on mRNA- based vaccine platforms [21,22] was incorporated into the current vaccine initiatives; in several countries, public funds supported financial risk- taking [10,19]; and phase I and II clinical trials recruited more volunteers than previous clinical trials, helping speed the transition to phase III studies in large, diverse, multinational cohorts [10,19].
However, the effectiveness of a vaccine depends not only on its efficacy and safety, but also on its widespread uptake in the population. The way out of the pandemic was muddied by a dizzying deluge of conspiracy theories about the virus, the disease, and the vaccines. This maelstrom of misinformation and disinformation polarized and politicized society and continues to do so at the expense of human suffering and lost lives. Some conspiracy theories claim that the virus and the disease do not exist [23], that they were created by healthcare professionals or the industry to commercialize vaccines [23,24] or cleanse the population [25], that the virus is a population control scheme [26], that 5G is the cause of COVID-19 or facilitates its spread [27,28], that a cure exists but the world’s elites [25] or pharmaceutical companies [29] are not sharing it, or that vitamin C and garlic, or mixing a sodium chlorite solution with citric acid to generate a chlorine dioxide solution, could help [30]. Marginally evaluated “repurposed” drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine and veterinary ivermectin, were hyped through social media and celebrity endorsements [31,32,33]. Masks as a safety measure were politicized [34,35,36] and became a controversial topic in the US during the pandemic [37], even though many studies have demonstrated their effectiveness against the transmission of several respiratory viruses [38,39,40,41,42], including SARS-CoV-2 [43,44]. Conversely, in several countries in Asia mask wearing has become long accepted as a strategy to prevent exposure to airborne pathogens [45,46] and air pollution [47,48] and as a way to show solidarity, civic responsibility, allegiance to science, and common sense [47].
An analysis of several large nationally representative study surveys across 13 countries indicates that the percentage of the population that intends to be vaccinated against COVID-19 has declined as the pandemic has progressed [49]. Exposure to faulty information and distorted, then amplified concerns about vaccine safety emerged both in the US [50] and the UK [51] as contributing factors. The good news is that as of early November 2021, >4 billion people, or >51% of the world’s population, has received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose [52]. The concerning situation is that rather rapidly waning immunity has required booster shots such that fully vaccinated may not be equivalent to strongly protected. Herd immunity is an elusive and now receding goal with the strong evidence that vaccinated people can acquire, amplify, and transmit the virus, albeit to a lesser extent [53,54,55,56,57]. Large populations, most notably across Africa [58,59,60] and historically underserved communities [61,62], have little or no practical access to the vaccines today. Political as well as social adoption of the COVID-19 vaccines was neither an easy nor a straightforward task, and the path forward does not seem to become any easier.
The rampant spread of misinformation flourished even more once the vaccine-related conspiracy theories emerged and blended into the already circulating misinformation about the virus and the disease. Arguments that the pandemic is a ploy to force everyone to be vaccinated [28], that the vaccine is a plan to control and track the population with embedded microchips [28] or to alter people’s genomes [63,64], or claims that people will become infertile [64,65,66] or will have miscarriages [67,68,69,70] spread on social media and were shared extensively. An intricate interplay across these multiple layers of misinformation was, to a great extent, driven by trolls and social media chatter, which in 2020 was dominated by the COVID-19 pandemic [71,72]. The ubiquitous platforms were co-opted, weaponized, and promulgated by individuals and groups sowing discord [72], and the political and media operatives endlessly repeating and amplifying false narratives set the stage for a perfect storm [73]. The pandemic polarized societies to a greater extent than many other events in recent history, provoked tribalism, and created a world in which the line between fact and opinion fades [74]. Disinformation has resulted in health- care personnel and scientists being bullied, vilified, threatened, assaulted, and attacked [75,76,77,78,79].
Anti-vaccination rhetoric is not new; it has existed ever since vaccines were first introduced [80,81], despite vaccination being one of the most successful developments in science and medicine. In Edward Jenner’s times, cartoons claimed that vaccination would cause people to develop cow horns and tails [82]. Vaccine-related misinformation delayed the eradication of preventable infectious diseases and sometimes led to their reemergence, undermining public health [83,84,85,86,87].
For infectious diseases with long-lasting immunity, such as measles and pertussis, pockets of nonmedical (religious and philosophical) exemption to vaccination overlap geographically with pockets of disease [88,89,90] and increase the risks to individuals and the population [90,91,92,93,94,95]. Clusters of nonmedical exemption to school immunization in Michigan revealed a geographic overlap with clusters of reported cases of pertussis [92]. In a study on children in Colorado, those with vaccination exemptions were >22 times more likely to acquire measles and 5.9 times more likely to acquire pertussis than those who were vaccinated [96]. A population-based retrospective cohort study found that people claiming religious and/or philosophical exemption from the measles vaccine were 35 times more likely to contract measles than vaccinated people [97], and several studies reported that those with nonmedical exemptions and those who refused vaccines place vaccinated individuals at risk as well [91,98]. [99], Understandably, in 2019 the World Health Organization identified vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten global health threats [100].
Due to the relatively short-lived humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2, the public health damage caused by vaccination hesitancy/refusal and misinformation is more immediate, and more impactful, than in the case of many other infectious diseases. In the COVID-19 pandemic, the realistic scenario that unvaccinated individuals may re-infect vaccinated individuals with waning immunity threatens our hopes to forge a way out of the pandemic. Immunity to seasonal coronaviruses lasts from 80 days to a few years [101] and natural reinfection with the same strain is possible 12 months after infection [102]. During the 2002-2004 SARS outbreak, protective antibody titers to SARS-CoV-1 persisted for one to two years [103,104,105]. The duration of humoral immunity to SARS- CoV-2 is not well understood but appears to be short-lived after natural infection [106,107,108], an important aspect when developing public health interventions. In severe, mild, and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2, the antibody half-life was 69, 87, and 31 days, respectively [109]. Misconceptions about waning antibody levels in the months following vaccination were one of the factors that led skeptics to question the purposes of vaccination, which are primarily the reduction of severe illness [110,111], hospitalization [112,113], and death [114,115]. With an uneven distribution of vaccines and their delayed rollout to children, the emergence of new viral variants, the short- lived humoral immune response, and the spread of misinformation, the focus on the likelihood to achieve herd immunity and on its potential impact subsided as compared to the early days of the pandemic.
Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines started to spread even before a vaccine was developed [116]. Even five to ten minutes of contact with vaccination-critical web sites are sufficient to exert a negative impact on the intention to vaccinate [117]. As the impact of vaccination refusal and misinformation has changed in the COVID-19 era, the strategy for how to best combat misinformation, and at the same time provide accurate and reliable knowledge, has also shifted, and remains an ongoing challenge. In a world where falsehoods have been spreading faster and farther [118] than accurate information, we are navigating wildly uncharted territories.
In the wake of the pandemic, the political polarization described in several countries [119,120,121,122,123,124], particularly on social networks [125], is evident as a major barrier to pandemic mitigation [121,126]. [127], Understanding and countering how polarization is driven on social networks [125,126] are emerging as a critical focus if the pandemic is to be controlled and ended. Social media, including Facebook [128,129], Flickr, Instagram [130], and Twitter [71,131] facilitate echo chambers, in which individuals seek, select, and interpret information that conforms to their beliefs [132,133,134]. Echo chambers, where people only hear their own voice [135], reinforce self-justification. Generating and distributing a safe and effective vaccine in record time is no longer sufficient to combat this, and probably future pandemics. Instead, building a framework that integrates biomedical sciences, engineering, and biotechnology, with insights from social, political, and communication sciences, is indispensable. This framework needs to place a major emphasis on trusted health practitioners, well informed community leaders, social networks, and promotion of digital health literacy [136,137,138].
In his book Public Opinion [139], Walter Lippmann talks about the pseudo-environment, the world that is inserted between individuals and their environment. The genesis, dynamics, and consequences of this pseudo-environment are very relevant in the pandemic that we are navigating. Lippmann points out that the images and views that we generate are acted upon by individuals and groups of individuals, and they collectively shape public opinion. However, public opinions can often mislead as we interact with the surrounding world, and they create what he insightfully calls the pictures in our heads. Individuals act in response to the pseudo- environment, but the consequences of their actions operate in the real environment. This may be a common denominator to misinformation occurring in many domains of life, whether generated by fabrication, distortion, or omission.
When misinformation pertains to medical and scientific facts, the dangers to individual and collective wellbeing and to public health are immediate, far-reaching, long-lasting, and difficult to reverse, if possible at all. This should be one of the most memorable lessons that the current pandemic has conferred.

Funding

None to declare.

Conflicts of Interest

None to declare.

References

  1. Liu, C.; Zhou, Q.; Li, Y.; et al. Research and development on therapeutic agents and vaccines for COVID-19 and related human coronavirus diseases. ACS Cent Sci. 2020, 6, 315–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kaur, S.P.; Gupta, V. COVID-19 vaccine: A comprehensive status report. Virus Res. 2020, 288, 198114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tanzi, E.; Genovese, C.; Tettamanzi, M.; Fappani, C.; Raviglione, M.C.; Amendola, A. COVID-19 vaccines: Evidence, challenges and the future. J Prev Med Hyg. 2021, 62, E18–E29. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lythgoe, M.P.; Middleton, P. Comparison of COVID-19 vaccine approvals at the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada. JAMA Netw Open. 2021, 4, e2114531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves first COVID-19 vaccine. 2021. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press- announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine (accessed on 13 October 2021).
  6. Woodworth, K.R.; Moulia, D.; Collins, J.P.; et al. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 5-11 years—United States, November 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021, 70, 1579–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tregoning, J.S.; Brown, E.S.; Cheeseman, H.M.; et al. Vaccines for COVID-19. Clin Exp Immunol. 2020, 202, 162–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yi, Y.; Lagniton, P.N.P.; Ye, S.; Li, E.; Xu, R.H. COVID-19, what has been learned and to be learned about the novel coronavirus disease. Int J Biol Sci. 2020, 16, 1753–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bhat, E.A.; Khan, J.; Sajjad, N.; et al. SARS-CoV-2, insight in genome structure, pathogenesis and viral receptor binding analysis—An updated review. Int Immunopharmacol. 2021, 95, 107493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Deplanque, D.; Launay, O. Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines: From clinical trials to real life. Therapie. 2021, 76, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kuter, B.J.; Offit, P.A.; Poland, G.A. The development of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States: Why and how so fast? Vaccine. 2021, 39, 2491–2495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Forman, R.; Anderson, M.; Jit, M.; Mossialos, E. Ensuring access and affordability through COVID-19 vaccine research and development investments: A proposal for the options market for vaccines. Vaccine. 2020, 38, 6075–6077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lurie, N.; Keusch, G.T.; Dzau, V.J. Urgent lessons from COVID 19, why the world needs a standing, coordinated system and sustainable financing for global research and development. Lancet. 2021, 397, 1229–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chaudhary, N.; Weissman, D.; Whitehead, K.A. mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: Principles, delivery and clinical translation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2021, 20, 817–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Baden, L.R.; El Sahly, H.M.; Essink, B.; et al. Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2021, 384, 403–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Thanh Le, T.; Andreadakis, Z.; Kumar, A.; et al. The COVID-19 vaccine development landscape. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020, 19, 305–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hanney, S.R.; Wooding, S.; Sussex, J.; Grant, J. From COVID-19 research to vaccine application: Why might it take 17 months not 17 years and what are the wider lessons? Health Res Policy Syst. 2020, 18, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Lurie, N.; Saville, M.; Hatchett, R.; Halton, J. Developing COVID-19 vaccines at pandemic speed. N Engl J Med. 2020, 382, 1969–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Krammer, F. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in development. Nature. 2020, 586, 516–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hodgson, J. The pandemic pipeline. Nat Biotechnol. 2020, 38, 523–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Damase, T.R.; Sukhovershin, R.; Boada, C.; Taraballi, F.; Pettigrew, R.I.; Cooke, J.P. The limitless future of RNA therapeutics. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021, 9, 628137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Maruggi, G.; Zhang, C.; Li, J.; Ulmer, J.B.; Yu, D. mRNA as a transformative technology for vaccine development to control infectious diseases. Mol Ther. 2019, 27, 757–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hakim, M.S. SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories. Rev Med Virol. 2021, 31, e2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ullah, I.; Khan, K.S.; Tahir, M.J.; Ahmed, A.; Harapan, H. Myths and conspiracy theories on vaccines and COVID- 19, potential effect on global vaccine refusals. Vacunas. 2021, 22, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bernard, F.O.; Akaito, J.A.; Joseph, I.; David, K.B. COVID-19, the trends of conspiracy theories vs. facts. Pan Afr Med, J. 2020, 35, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Islam, M.S.; Sarkar, T.; Khan, S.H.; et al. COVID-19-related infodemic and its impact on public health: A global social media analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020, 103, 1621–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ahmed, W.; Vidal-Alaball, J.; Downing, J.; López Seguí, F. COVID-19 and the 5G conspiracy theory: Social network analysis of Twitter data. J Med Internet Res. 2020, 22, e19458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wirawan, G.B.S.; Mahardani, P.N.T.Y.; Cahyani, M.R.K.; Laksmi NLPSP, Januraga, P.P. Conspiracy beliefs and trust as determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Bali, Indonesia: Cross-sectional study. Pers Individ Dif. 2021, 180, 110995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, H.O.; Bailey, A.; Huynh, D.; Chan, J. YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19, a pandemic of misinformation? BMJ Glob Health. 2020, 5, e002604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mian, A.; Khan, S. Coronavirus: The spread of misinformation. BMC Med. 2020, 18, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Merone, L.; Finlay, S. Pandemic and promise: Progress towards finding an effective treatment for novel coronavirus 19. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2020, 44, 437–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Carrion-Alvarez, D.; Tijerina-Salina, P.X. Fake news in COVID-19, a perspective. Health Promot Perspect. 2020, 10, 290–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Machiels, J.D.; Ter Avest, M.; Ten Oever, J.; Kramers, C. [Chloroquine for COVID-19, a hype or not? ]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2020, 164, D5475. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kahane, L.H. Politicizing the mask: Political, economic and demographic factors affecting mask wearing behavior in the USA. East Econ, J. 2021, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Howard, M.C. Are face masks a partisan issue during the COVID-19 pandemic? Differentiating political ideology and political party affiliation. Int J Psychol. 2021. [CrossRef]
  36. He, L.; He, C.; Reynolds, T.L.; et al. Why do people oppose mask wearing? A comprehensive analysis of U.S. tweets during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021, 28, 1564–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lang, J.; Erickson, W.W.; Jing-Schmidt, Z. #MaskOn! #MaskOff! Digital polarization of mask-wearing in the United States during COVID-19. PLoS ONE. 2021, 16, e0250817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Leung, N.H.L.; Chu, D.K.W.; Shiu, E.Y.C.; et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat Med. 2020, 26, 676–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cowling, B.J.; Zhou, Y.; Ip, D.K.; Leung, G.M.; Aiello, A.E. Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review. Epidemiol Infect. 2010, 138, 449–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bin-Reza, F.; Lopez Chavarrias, V.; Nicoll, A.; Chamberland, M.E. The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: A systematic review of the scientific evidence. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2012, 6, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Liang, M.; Gao, L.; Cheng, C.; et al. Efficacy of face mask in preventing respiratory virus transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020, 36, 101751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Brienen, N.C.; Timen, A.; Wallinga, J.; van Steenbergen, J.E.; Teunis, P.F. The effect of mask use on the spread of influenza during a pandemic. Risk Anal. 2010, 30, 1210–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ueki, H.; Furusawa, Y.; Iwatsuki-Horimoto, K.; et al. Effectiveness of face masks in preventing airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. mSphere. 2020, 5, e00637–e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Mitze, T.; Kosfeld, R.; Rode, J.; Wälde, K. Face masks considerably reduce COVID-19 cases in Germany. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020, 117, 32293–32301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, J.; Pan, L.; Tang, S.; Ji, J.S.; Shi, X. Mask use during COVID-19, a risk adjusted strategy. Environ Pollut. 2020, 266, 115099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Panda, S.; Kaur, H.; Dandona, L.; Bhargava, B. Face mask -an essential armour in the fight of India against COVID-19. Indian J Med Res. 2021, 153, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Tsang, P.M.; Prost, A. Boundaries of solidarity: A meta- ethnography of mask use during past epidemics to inform SARS-CoV-2 suppression. BMJ Glob Health. 2021, 6, e004068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Burgess, A.; Horii, M. Risk, ritual and health responsibilisation: Japan’s ‘safety blanket’ of surgical face mask-wearing. Sociol Health Illn. 2012, 34, 1184–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Robinson, E.; Jones, A.; Lesser, I.; Daly, M. International estimates of intended uptake and refusal of COVID-19 vaccines: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of large nationally representative samples. Vaccine. 2021, 39, 2024–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Daly, M.; Robinson, E. Willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 in the U. S.: Representative longitudinal evidence from April to October 2020. Am J Prev Med. 2021, 60, 766–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Paul, E.; Steptoe, A.; Fancourt, D. Attitudes towards vaccines and intention to vaccinate against COVID-19, implications for public health communications. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021, 1, 100012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Holder, J. Tracking coronavirus vaccinations around the world. 2021. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covi d-vaccinations-tracker.html (accessed on 4 November 2021).
  53. Brett, T.S.; Rohani, P. Transmission dynamics reveal the impracticality of COVID-19 herd immunity strategies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020, 117, 25897–25903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bleier, B.S.; Ramanathan, M., Jr; Lane, A.P. COVID-19 vaccines may not prevent nasal SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic transmission. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021, 164, 305–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schiavone, M.; Gasperetti, A.; Mitacchione, G.; Viecca, M.; Forleo, G.B. Response to: COVID-19 re-infection. Vaccinated individuals as a potential source of transmission. Eur J Clin Invest. 2021, 51, e13544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Harder, T.; Koch, J.; Vygen-Bonnet, S.; et al. Efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection: Interim results of a living systematic review, 1 January to 14 May 2021. Euro Surveill. 2021, 26, 2100563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Aschwanden, C. Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible. Nature. 2021, 591, 520–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nachega, J.B.; Sam-Agudu, N.A.; Masekela, R.; et al. Addressing challenges to rolling out COVID-19 vaccines in African countries. Lancet Glob Health. 2021, 9, e746–e748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Massinga Loembé, M.; Nkengasong, J.N. COVID-19 vaccine access in Africa: Global distribution, vaccine platforms, and challenges ahead. Immunity. 2021, 54, 1353–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Jerving, S. The long road ahead for COVID-19 vaccination in Africa. Lancet. 2021, 398, 827–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Pattin, A.J. Disparities in the use of immunization services among underserved minority patient populations and the role of pharmacy technicians: A review. J Pharm Technol. 2017, 33, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bazan, I.S.; Akgün, K.M. COVID-19 Healthcare inequity: Lessons learned from annual influenza vaccination rates to mitigate COVID-19 vaccine disparities. Yale J Biol Med. 2021, 94, 509–515. [Google Scholar]
  63. Hotez, P.; Batista, C.; Ergonul, O.; et al. Correcting COVID-19 vaccine misinformation: Lancet Commission on COVID-19 Vaccines and Therapeutics Task Force Members. EClinicalMedicine. 2021, 33, 100780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Islam, M.S.; Kamal, A.M.; Kabir, A.; et al. COVID-19 vaccine rumors and conspiracy theories: The need for cognitive inoculation against misinformation to improve vaccine adherence. PLoS ONE. 2021, 16, e0251605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Loomba, S.; de Figueiredo, A.; Piatek, S.J.; de Graaf, K.; Larson, H.J. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat Hum Behav. 2021, 5, 337–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Markert, U.R.; Szekeres-Bartho, J.; Schleußner, E. Adverse effects on female fertility from vaccination against COVID-19 unlikely. J Reprod Immunol. 2021, 148, 103428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Male, V. Are COVID-19 vaccines safe in pregnancy? Nat Rev Immunol. 2021, 21, 200–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kharbanda, E.O.; Haapala, J.; DeSilva, M.; et al. Spontaneous abortion following COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. JAMA. 2021, 326, 1629–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schraer, R. Covid vaccine: Fertility and miscarriage claims fact-checked. 2021. Available online: https://www.bbc.com/news/health- 57552527 (accessed on 8 October 2021).
  70. Moodley, J.; Khaliq, O.P.; Mkhize, P.Z. Misrepresentation about vaccines that are scaring women. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2021, 13, e1–e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Jiang, J.; Ren, X.; Ferrara, E. Social media polarization and echo chambers in the context of COVID-19, case study. JMIRx Med. 2021, 2, e29570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Broniatowski, D.A.; Jamison, A.M.; Qi, S.; et al. Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. Am J Public Health. 2018, 108, 1378–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cichocka, A. To counter conspiracy theories, boost well- being. Nature. 2020, 587, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Parmet, W.E.; Paul, J. COVID-19, the first posttruth pandemic. Am J Public Health. 2020, 110, 945–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. McKay, D.; Heisler, M.; Mishori, R.; Catton, H.; Kloiber, O. Attacks against health-care personnel must stop, especially as the world fights COVID-19. Lancet. 2020, 395, 1743–1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Larkin, H. Navigating attacks against health care workers in the COVID-19 Era. JAMA. 2021, 325, 1822–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Dye, T.D.; Alcantara, L.; Siddiqi, S.; et al. Risk of COVID- 19-related bullying, harassment and stigma among healthcare workers: An analytical cross-sectional global study. BMJ Open. 2020, 10, e046620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nogrady, B. ‘I hope you die’: How the COVID pandemic unleashed attacks on scientists. Nature. 2021, 598, 250–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Devi, S. COVID-19 exacerbates violence against health workers. Lancet. 2020, 396, 658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Swingle, C.A. How do we approach anti-vaccination attitudes? Mo Med. 2018, 115, 180–181. [Google Scholar]
  81. Poland, G.A.; Jacobson, R.M. The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists. N Engl J Med. 2011, 364, 97–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Henderson, D.A. Edward Jenner’s vaccine. Public Health Rep. 1997, 112, 116–121. [Google Scholar]
  83. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Resurgence of wild poliovirus type 1 transmission and consequences of importation--21 countries, 2002-2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006, 55, 145–150.
  84. Warraich, H.J. Religious opposition to polio vaccination. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009, 15, 978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kapp, C. Surge in polio spreads alarm in northern Nigeria. Rumours about vaccine safety in Muslim-run states threaten WHO’s eradication programme. Lancet. 2003, 362, 1631–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Clements, C.J.; Greenough, P.; Shull, D. How vaccine safety can become political--the example of polio in Nigeria. Curr Drug Saf. 2006, 1, 117–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kaufmann, J.R.; Feldbaum, H. Diplomacy and the polio immunization boycott in Northern Nigeria. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009, 28, 1091–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Zipfel, C.M.; Garnier, R.; Kuney, M.C.; Bansal, S. The landscape of childhood vaccine exemptions in the United States. Sci Data. 2020, 7, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Paquette, E.T. In the wake of a pandemic: Revisiting school approaches to nonmedical exemptions to mandatory vaccination in the US. J Pediatr. 2021, 231, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Bednarczyk, R.A.; King, A.R.; Lahijani, A.; Omer, S.B. Current landscape of nonmedical vaccination exemptions in the United States: Impact of policy changes. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2019, 18, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wang, E.; Clymer, J.; Davis-Hayes, C.; Buttenheim, A. Nonmedical exemptions from school immunization requirements: A systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2014, 104, e62–e84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Omer, S.B.; Enger, K.S.; Moulton, L.H.; Halsey, N.A.; Stokley, S.; Salmon, D.A. Geographic clustering of nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements and associations with geographic clustering of pertussis. Am J Epidemiol. 2008, 168, 1389–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Omer, S.B.; Pan, W.K.; Halsey, N.A.; et al. Nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements: Secular trends and association of state policies with pertussis incidence. JAMA. 2006, 296, 1757–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Imported measles case associated with nonmedical vaccine exemption--Iowa, March 2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004, 53, 244–246.
  95. Phadke, V.K.; Bednarczyk, R.A.; Salmon, D.A.; Omer, S.B. Association between vaccine refusal and vaccine- preventable diseases in the United States: A review of measles and pertussis. JAMA. 2016, 315, 1149–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Feikin, D.R.; Lezotte, D.C.; Hamman, R.F.; Salmon, D.A.; Chen, R.T.; Hoffman, R.E. Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization. JAMA. 2000, 284, 3145–3150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Salmon, D.A.; Haber, M.; Gangarosa, E.J.; Phillips, L.; Smith, N.J.; Chen, R.T. Health consequences of religious and philosophical exemptions from immunization laws: Individual and societal risk of measles. JAMA. 1999, 282, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Measles outbreak--Southwestern Utah, 1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997, 46, 766–769.
  99. Arora, K.S.; Morris, J.; Jacobs, A.J. Refusal of vaccination: A test to balance societal and individual interests. J Clin Ethics. 2018, 29, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Megget, K. Even COVID-19 can’t kill the anti- vaccination movement. BMJ. 2020, 369, m2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Poland, G.A.; Ovsyannikova, I.G.; Kennedy, R.B. SARS- CoV-2 immunity: Review and applications to phase 3 vaccine candidates. Lancet. 2020, 396, 1595–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Edridge, A.W.D.; Kaczorowska, J.; Hoste, A.C.R.; et al. Seasonal coronavirus protective immunity is short- lasting. Nat Med. 2020, 26, 1691–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Cao, W.C.; Liu, W.; Zhang, P.H.; Zhang, F.; Richardus, J.H. Disappearance of antibodies to SARS-associated coronavirus after recovery. N Engl J Med. 2007, 357, 1162–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wu, L.P.; Wang, N.C.; Chang, Y.H.; et al. Duration of antibody responses after severe acute respiratory syndrome. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007, 13, 1562–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Mo, H.; Zeng, G.; Ren, X.; et al. Longitudinal profile of antibodies against SARS-coronavirus in SARS patients and their clinical significance. Respirology. 2006, 11, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Seow, J.; Graham, C.; Merrick, B.; et al. Longitudinal observation and decline of neutralizing antibody responses in the three months following SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans. Nature Nat Microbiol. 2020, 5, 1598–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Ibarrondo, F.J.; Fulcher, J.A.; Goodman-Meza, D.; et al. Rapid decay of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in persons with mild COVID-19. N Engl J Med. 2020, 383, 1085–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Long, Q.X.; Tang, X.J.; Shi, Q.L.; et al. Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS- CoV-2 infections. Nat Med. 2020, 26, 1200–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Lau, E.H.Y.; Tsang, O.T.Y.; Hui, D.S.C.; et al. Neutralizing antibody titres in SARS-CoV-2 infections. Nat Commun. 2021, 12, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Lopez Bernal, J.; Andrews, N.; Gower, C.; et al. Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford- AstraZeneca vaccines on COVID-19 related symptoms, hospital admissions, and mortality in older adults in England: Test negative case-control study. BMJ. 2021, 373, n1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Scobie, H.M.; Johnson, A.G.; Suthar, A.B.; et al. Monitoring incidence of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, by vaccination status—13 U. S. jurisdictions, April 4-July 17, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021, 70, 1284–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Thompson, M.G.; Stenehjem, E.; Grannis, S.; et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in ambulatory and inpatient care settings. N Engl J Med. 2021, 385, 1355–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Cevik, M.; Grubaugh, N.D.; Iwasaki, A.; Openshaw, P. COVID-19 vaccines: Keeping pace with SARS-CoV-2 variants. Cell. 2021, 184, 5077–5081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Tavilani, A.; Abbasi, E.; Kian Ara, F.; Darini, A.; Asefy, Z. COVID-19 vaccines: Current evidence and considerations. Metabol Open. 2021, 12, 100124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Hodgson, S.H.; Mansatta, K.; Mallett, G.; Harris, V.; Emary, K.R.W.; Pollard, A.J. What defines an efficacious COVID-19 vaccine? A review of the challenges assessing the clinical efficacy of vaccines against SARS- CoV-2. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021, 21, e26–e35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Zhang, S. We don’t even have a COVID-19 vaccine, and yet the conspiracies are here. 2020. Available online: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/0 5/covid-19-vaccine-skeptics-conspiracies/611998/ (accessed on 17 November 2021).
  117. Betsch, C.; Renkewitz, F.; Betsch, T.; Ulshöfer, C. The influence of vaccine-critical websites on perceiving vaccination risks. J Health Psychol. 2010, 15, 446–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Sylvia Chou, W.Y.; Gaysynsky, A.; Cappella, J.N. Where we go from here: Health misinformation on social media. Am J Public Health. 2020, 110, S273–s5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Singh, M. Politics and the pandemic. In COVID-19 pandemic; Hidalgo, J., Rodríguez-Vega, G., Pérez-Fernández, J., Eds.; Elsevier, 2022; pp. 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Bruine de Bruin, W.; Saw, H.W.; Goldman, D.P. Political polarization in US residents’ COVID-19 risk perceptions, policy preferences, and protective behaviors. J Risk Uncertain. 2020, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Jiang, J.; Chen, E.; Lerman, K.; Ferrara, E. Political polarization drives online conversations about COVID-19 in the United States. Hum Behav Emerg Technol. 2020, 10.1002/hbe2.202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Arabaghatta Basavaraj, K.; Saikia, P.; Varughese, A.; Semetko, H.A.; Kumar, A. The COVID-19-social identity-digital media nexus in India: Polarization and blame. Polit Psychol. 2021, 10.1111/pops.12774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Havey, N.F. Partisan public health: How does political ideology influence support for COVID-19 related misinformation? J Comput Soc Sci. 2020, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Jungkunz, S. Political polarization during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Polit Sci. 2021, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Hong, I.; Rutherford, A.; Cebrian, M. Social mobilization and polarization can create volatility in COVID-19 pandemic control. Appl Netw Sci. 2021, 6, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Chipidza, W. The effect of toxicity on COVID-19 news network formation in political subcommunities on Reddit: An affiliation network approach. Int J Inf Manage. 2021, 61, 102397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Chen, H.F.; Karim, S.A. Relationship between political partisanship and COVID-19 deaths: Future implications for public health. J Public Health (Oxf). 2021, fdab136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Del Vicario, M.; Vivaldo, G.; Bessi, A.; et al. Echo chambers: Emotional contagion and group polarization on Facebook. Sci Rep. 2016, 6, 37825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Cinelli, M.; De Francisci Morales, G.; Galeazzi, A.; Quattrociocchi, W.; Starnini, M. The echo chamber effect on social media. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021, 118, e2023301118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Fung, I.C.; Blankenship, E.B.; Ahweyevu, J.O.; et al. Public health implications of image-based social media: A systematic review of Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr, and Flickr. Perm, J. 2020, 24, 18.307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Wang, D.; Qian, Y. Echo chamber effect in rumor rebuttal discussions about COVID-19 in China: Social media content and network analysis study. J Med Internet Res. 2021, 23, e27009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Van Bavel, J.J.; Pereira, A. The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018, 22, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Brugnoli, E.; Cinelli, M.; Quattrociocchi, W.; Scala, A. Recursive patterns in online echo chambers. Sci Rep. 2019, 9, 20118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Allahverdyan, A.E.; Galstyan, A. Opinion dynamics with confirmation bias. PLoS ONE. 2014, 9, e99557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Villa, G.; Pasi, G.; Viviani, M. Echo chamber detection and analysis: A topology- and content-based approach in the COVID-19 scenario. Soc Netw Anal Min. 2021, 11, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Patil, U.; Kostareva, U.; Hadley, M.; et al. Health literacy, digital health literacy, and COVID-19 pandemic attitudes and behaviors in U.S. college students: Implications for interventions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021, 18, 3301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Levin-Zamir, D. Communication, health literacy and a systems approach for mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic: The case for massive vaccine roll-out in Israel. J Health Commun. 2020, 25, 816–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Duong, T.V.; Lin, C.Y.; Chen, S.C.; et al. Oxford COVID- 19 vaccine hesitancy in school principals: Impacts of gender, well-being, and coronavirus-related health literacy. Vaccines (Basel). 2021, 9, 985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Lippmann, W. Public Opinion. In Free Press Paperbacks; Simon & Schuster: New York, 1997. [Google Scholar]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stein, R.A.; Ometa, O.; Broker, T.R. COVID-19: The Pseudo-Environment and the Need for a Paradigm Change. GERMS 2021, 11, 468-477. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2021.1283

AMA Style

Stein RA, Ometa O, Broker TR. COVID-19: The Pseudo-Environment and the Need for a Paradigm Change. GERMS. 2021; 11(4):468-477. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2021.1283

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stein, Richard A., Oana Ometa, and Thomas R. Broker. 2021. "COVID-19: The Pseudo-Environment and the Need for a Paradigm Change" GERMS 11, no. 4: 468-477. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2021.1283

APA Style

Stein, R. A., Ometa, O., & Broker, T. R. (2021). COVID-19: The Pseudo-Environment and the Need for a Paradigm Change. GERMS, 11(4), 468-477. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2021.1283

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop