Brazilian science communicators failed miserably during the pandemic

Only on issues that are real consensus science, I will tell a series of short stories that prove the monumental failure of science communicators, leading thousands to be killed.

Photo: Mufid Majnum/Unsplash

In this article, I will not go into the treatment aspects of COVID-19, about which I consider there is abundant scientific evidence, while the scientific communicators in the mainstream media consider that evidences are eternally insufficient, as well as campaigning against it. I have written about this in depth, more than once.

I will also not talk about aspects regarding the risk and benefit of vaccines, medical passports, or the almost unlimited powers of big pharmaceutical corporations over science, creating what the BMJ - British Medical Journal, calls "The illusion of evidence based medicine". This article explains that academia has been corrupted, research has been corrupted, regulatory authorities have been corrupted, and dissenters are persecuted. I have also written long pieces about this and understand that the communicators cannot give voices to the dissident scientists, the only ones left to tell the truth about these issues.

I understand that science communicators can only reproduce official decisions of Western institutions. I think they have cowed themselves by silencing the real scientific debate, but I understand them. The subject of cheap, generic and off-patent drug treatments is for closed circles, and it is basically impossible today to have this conversation in a public way.

In this text, I will base solely on real consensus, not manufactured consensus. I will do this because I do not want the slightest possibility of controversy about what I write. I don't want there to be any doubt about my criticism.

The hotel that locked its balcony

I recently stayed at a hotel in the city of Americana, in the interior of São Paulo. For breakfast, there was a beautiful balcony, large and with high ceilings, but it was locked and the windows all closed. This is against the consensus among all the specialists in COVID-19, both among those who treat and those who do not treat the disease. The more ventilated the rooms, the better to prevent the transmission of the virus.

The supposed scientific communicators, with space in the media, stayed locked in their homes and didn't understand how the world out here was going on. Hysterical, they interdicted the debate. Arrogant, from the top of an imaginary heel, it was lockdown, "shut everything down", "stop everything" and nothing else. And anyone who questioned, just for asking, was accused of being a science denier. At the same time, they were emotionally blackmailing everyone, giving the message that any doubt could only be from people who didn't care about the lives of others.

With the unreal order to stop the world, with no other options left, they made everyone lost, with the people not knowing what to do. Without proper instructions, several places, to show that they were doing something, implemented rules, each of their own heads, like closing even the hotel restaurant windows in a supposed fight against COVID.

This happened because, with the exaggerated fear of the virus, the scientific communication was being done from the TV news stands or lives on youtube. Science was supposed to be in the street, in real life, with camera in hand and orientations for the restaurants, bars, hotels and pubs that, obviously, needed to keep working and kept working.

The slots on the television were supposed to be occupied like this: "In this hotel, now during the pandemic, the balcony has been upgraded. There are now more tables outside than inside. Also, all the windows are open at maximum, even when a colder wind hits. Better to put on a sweater than to run the risk of COVID, isn't it, Joe?".

The hotel wanted and needed to do something, even to show the visitors that they were worried and doing something against the pandemic. They even put up ribbons to mark that the balcony could not be used, as well as illustrated posters explaining the procedure. But they did exactly the opposite of what was recommended. This is a definite proof of the homeric failure of scientific communicators, pushing people towards the virus. And ventilated environments, without crowds, are really very effective.

Crowded Post Office

I rarely need to go to the post office. Just after one of the low waves of COVID, I needed to go to a post office. It was packed like never before. For some mysterious reason, they reduced the opening hours instead of maintaining or expanding them. It opens later and closes earlier. The result? People need to go to the post office and they go to the post office.

With fewer opening hours, there are more people in the service at the same time. All that was needed were guidelines on maintaining or extending opening hours so that there would be fewer people at the same time. The same thing happened with banks. One day I saw a bank agency, also with reduced opening hours, crowded with elderly people.

Does anyone think that the banks or the Post Office, don't want to convey an image of being concerned about COVID? Yes, they do. Companies of this size are terrified of negative headlines. There was a lack of scientific clarification. Disoriented, they needed to do something to communicate that they were taking some action. And they did exactly the opposite. They created crowds. A failure to communicate real science.

The bar that created crowds

In the middle of last year I went to a bar in my city, Atibaia. With the temperature mild, half the people were inside and half outside, on the sidewalk, drinking their beers standing and talking. When it was 11 o'clock at night, the person in charge put everyone inside, making everyone crowd together, and closed the windows. "Measures against COVID," he said. He did exactly the opposite. The more crowding, the worse. That is scientific consensus.

The small bar doesn't have big public relations concerns like an Bank or the Post Office. The person in charge explained to me that this was due to a decree from the town's mayor. How could scientific communicators not explain the right thing on television every day? And pandemic is a favorite subject of the TV news until today. It was supposed to go something like this: "This is Mr. Joe's bar. He keeps all the windows open and has put more tables on the sidewalk. He says he doesn't want anyone inside and has even run a promotion to encourage the new rules".

The mayor, disoriented, needed to show that he was doing something to satisfy public opinion. His decree to close it obviously backfired. A failure not of the mayor, but of the communicators who failed to guide the authorities.

Besides, Brazil is privileged with mild temperatures most of the year. The mayors of all places should have taken action to make the outside tables more flexible, going further out onto the sidewalks than the rules usually allow. Something you can't do in Alaska, Canada, or Sweden. The promoters, holed up in their homes, helped to spread the virus and kill people. They missed the opportunity that few countries have.

"I'm vaccinated. I've had three doses."

On twitter, I saw a post by Isaac Schrarstzhaupt. He is part of a network of science communicators called Rede Análise, whose mission is to analyze numbers and guide the Brazilian population in all aspects of the pandemic. He noticed a strange way of acting from people suspected of COVID-19. He understood it as a mystery.

"One behavior that I find counter-sensical is the fact that the person with flu symptoms never cogitates that it might be covid. 'Oh, it's rhinitis, ah, it's allergies, ah, I always have this at this time,' being that it has a statistically good chance of being covid due to the high transmission," he posted.

Yes, that is exactly what happens. And yes, for him, this behavior is a mystery. Issac, covering the subject daily, still doesn't understand the catastrophic failure that science communicators, in unanimous voice, have brought to the population.

To continue on this topic and evaluate this behavior, we first need to talk about the masks used as prevention of COVID-19. And to talk about the effectiveness of the masks, let's go to the best study conducted on this. It was a randomized trial, done by Danish scientists, peer-reviewed and published in the respected scientific journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

3,030 people were assigned to have them wear masks. Another 2,994 people were the control group, for comparison. Among those who wore masks, 1.8% of the users became infected within the study time frame. Among those who did not wear them, 2.1% of them were infected, but it is a small enough difference to be statistically irrelevant.

"The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection," the scientists concluded in the study.

That is, in this randomized study, the so-called "gold standard", the best for comparison, which represents a higher level of evidence, made no difference between those who used the masks and those who did not. We had no larger, well-conducted studies to repeat the experiment. The conclusion, without mincing our words, is that the masks, if they work, have a low effect in preventing the virus.

There is no way to deviate from the article and make a big discussion about the masks. Many people have already done that, in depth. Here we are analyzing the messages given to the population. And the message has been, all along, that masks are very effective. It is what we can consider a "little lie of good". To get people to wear them, they exaggerated the positive effect, with no space for questioning.

Although there is no overwhelming evidence in favor yet, I personally believe that the masks do work to prevent COVID-19 contagion, something between 10 and 20% effectiveness at most. But only if the right masks are used in the right way. 

Still, I think it is a valid debate whether it is worth using it, because of such low efficacy and because there are potential risks of continued use, especially for children. The argument is that a person, just by wearing it, already signals his concern about the pandemic. And nobody invites a person wearing a mask to a party with crowds, for example.

The same "little lie for good" occurred with the vaccines against COVID-19. In a vaccination campaign, in order to get people to adhere, they exaggerated the marketing, increasing the effectiveness. The message went something like this: "vaccines protect you and your family". However, these vaccines are not sterilizers. Even if you are vaccinated, you get the disease and spread it. Vaccines don't reduce transmission. They didn't, for example, make the slightest difference in the waves of infection, comparing more vaccinated places with less vaccinated ones. 

The well-rehearsed message of this campaign came from a study done at Yale, as recently as 2020, but not released until October 2021, when most people were already vaccinated. "Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions". The authors state: "Emphasizing that vaccination is a prosocial action increase uptake, but it also increases people’s willingness to pressure others to do"

In other words, they lied about the effect of the masks to increase acceptance and lied about the effect of the vaccines to increase coverage, treating the population like children.

In this context, I tell a story that I have witnessed. Recently I walked into a convenience store. The attendant was having flu-like symptoms during a pandemic that causes flu-like symptoms. "It could be COVID there," I said. As in Isaac's account, she denied it. She said it was something else: a cold or a flu. I suggested that she should isolate herself instead of continuing to work, so that she would not transmit the possible COVID to others. She also denied it. I insisted that it could be COVID. "I'm vaccinated. I've had three doses," assuring me it was not. I insisted that it could be. "But I was careful, I used a mask and alcohol gel," she said.

No one told her that she could get COVID even if she wore masks, because the effectiveness is low. No one told her that she could get the disease even if vaccinated, because vaccines are not sterilizing. They didn't inform her correctly so that she would act the way they wanted her to. 

Moreover, with the information that she had, repeated uninterruptedly in the media, the message remained that only careless people, who for some time, were without a mask, get the disease.

Who wants to stick a stamp on themselves as "careless" and transmitter of the pandemic, since everything is so very, incredibly, effective? For her, she added the high effectiveness of the vaccines with the high effectiveness of the masks, so it was something else, COVID-19 could not be. The "good lie" went wrong. It always goes wrong.

Japan did not deal with its people as idiots

In a recent paper published in the scientific journal Nature, Hitoshi Oshitani explains that the people there have not been fooled with "good little lies" treating their people childishly. "COVID lessons from Japan: the right messaging empowers citizens".

In a lighthearted and polite manner, he explained that the Japanese were not lost in fear of the disease. "Overall, the government quickly equipped its people with information to take protective action and avoided rigid prescriptions," he said.

The author explained that the country warned of three conditions to avoid. "closed environments, crowded conditions and close-contact settings. Even as other countries focused on disinfection, Japan promoted this concept extensively, by asking people to avoid high-risk activities such as karaoke bars, nightclubs and indoor dining."

Moreover, Japan, with regard to respect for human rights, is exemplary to the world. They have not forced vaccination, they have enforced informed consent, a requirement of the Nuremberg Code, and they have discouraged prejudice against the unvaccinated. In other words, they don't mind calling and dealing with COVID vaccines as they really are: experimental vaccines.

"Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided. Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent. Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.", says the official government document.

Brazil: "Shut up and get vaccinated".

Absolutely everything I have reported above has generated the exact opposite result to the one desired. And the science communicators themselves know how they have acted. The assessment is that giving out incorrect information can be beneficial. "Correct information can have less result than incorrect information according to the bias / education / culture of those who receive that information," confessed Issac.

About vaccination, he said that the correct communication, according to him, is the one that explains everything in detail so that the population can make their decision, but what works here, according to him, is the "shut up and get vaccinated".

And to push vaccines to everyone was really the tone of the communication. That is why the serious accusation of fraud in the study of Pfzer's vaccine, published in the BMJ, was hushed up by the scientific communicators. And it should be clear that this is not a baseless accusation, going viral in the internet underworld, published on the website "patriots something". It was published in the BMJ, one of the oldest and most respected scientific journals in the world.

This is part of the picture of the monumental failure of scientific communication, something supposedly specialized, where there are preparatory courses for those who propose to do the job, such as master's degrees offered in the area by Fiocruz and Unicamp.

I refuse to believe that in the first class, some teacher would walk into the room and say, "treat everyone like children and don't worry about the consequences of this," an order that seems to have been followed to the letter.

And the cost? It was high. I personally cannot remember, in history, a greater failure.