The significant number of COVID-19 conspiracies are connected with the lack of understanding among people. Some people tend to explain the spread of the infection by building 5G stations, while others refuse to believe that the virus exists (Professor Dave Explains). These cases illustrate the extremities in the public opinions on this topic. At the same time, there is another group whose views on the virus and the pandemic are false from the scientific and rational points of view, but at the same time, they are more moderate (Professor Dave Explains). For instance, they believe that the virus does not have serious health consequences for most people, while the vaccines are dangerous for everyone who decides to do them. This opinion is adequate from the rational perspective, making it popular among many individuals. As a result, the spread of this misinformation leads to the appearance of prejudged opinions about vaccination, which endangers public health globally.
The peculiar detail is that free access to all types of information in the digital age is one of the primary reasons that lead to the spread of conspiracy theories. People do not try to search for credible sources of information about the issue. Instead of it, they read and watch popular content on social media that explains to them in simple terms the events they cannot understand without external help, and these materials usually feature theories that are far from scientific knowledge (Desta 713). People feel panic and anxiety, which reduces their abilities for critical thinking, and as a result, they believe in the information they acquire while scrolling through the news or communicating with other individuals on the Internet (Desta 713). Therefore, it is not strange that the COVID-19 pandemic triggered conspiracies and pseudoscience that spread quickly in the digital age.
Antivaccine activists spread their opinion on social media, which creates the illusion of public support. In addition, it is easy to use false credentials on the Internet, claiming that the person who articulates antivaccine views is a professor of medicine (Muric et al. 1). As a result, the popularization of the myths connected with vaccination from COVID-19 that is even more dangerous than the virus itself leads to the global trend of vaccine refusal. The researchers assume that the virus will adapt to the new reality, and its mutation will cause a new wave of contamination in the nearest future (Ullah et al. 93). No need to say that this consequence of the widespread conspiracy is negative for all people.
The COVID-19 conspiracies include various types of misinformation ranging from utterly ignorant to partially irrational. Those examples of conspiracies that seem logical tend to spread quickly among the majority of people who do not have sufficient knowledge about the virus and the spread of the infection. The risks connected with vaccination from COVID-19 are one example of the conspiracies that create the illusion that they are rational. Some people did not suffer much from COVID-19, and there were cases of severe health damage that occurred after vaccination. As a result, it was easy for people to believe in the adverse consequences of the vaccine against the virus. It leads to the spread of this false opinion, and nowadays, millions of antivaccers exist. Therefore, the new wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was expected.
Works Cited
Desta, Takele T, and Tewodros Mulugeta. “Living with COVID-19-triggered Pseudoscience and Conspiracies.” International Journal of Public Health, vol. 65, no. 6, 2020, pp. 713-714.
Muric, Goran et al. “COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy on Social Media: Building a Public Twitter Data Set of Antivaccine Content, Vaccine Misinformation, and Conspiracies.” JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, vol. 7, no. 11, 2021, e30642.
Professor Dave Explains. “Debunking COVID-19 Conspiracies (Coronavirus Update #2).” YouTube, uploaded by Professor Dave Explains, Web.
Ullah, I et al. “Myths and conspiracy theories on vaccines and COVID-19: Potential effect on global vaccine refusals.” Vacunas, vol. 22, no. 2, 2021, pp. 93-97.