The role of algorithms in propelling conspiracy theories and radicalisation has been brought into sharp focus by the interlocking crises of the past 12 months. Social media platforms have sought to tamp down on algorithmic recommendation of conspiracy theories and extremist content. This briefing uses Amazon’s book sales platform to illustrate how these problems with algorithmic recommendation extend far beyond the social media platforms. At the core of this issue is the failure to consider what a system designed to upsell customers on fitness equipment or gardening tools would do when unleashed on products espousing conspiracy theories, disinformation or extreme views. The entirely foreseeable outcome is that Amazon’s platform is inadvertently but actively promoting these ideas to their customers. The question of banning books is contentious and demands a broader conversation. However, there is a relatively simple solution to the problem of algorithmic amplification: turning recommendations off on these products, to avoid actively promoting harmful content and also avoid funnelling extra money into the pockets of its creators.

Recommended Reading: Amazon’s algorithms, conspiracy theories and extremist literature

10.1145/3411764.3445250

There is a growing concern that e-commerce platforms are amplifying vaccine-misinformation. To investigate, we conduct two-sets of algorithmic audits for vaccine misinformation on the search and recommendation algorithms of Amazon—world’s leading e-retailer. First, we systematically audit search-results belonging to vaccine-related search-queries without logging into the platform—unpersonalized audits. We find 10.47% of search-results promote misinformative health products. We also observe ranking-bias, with Amazon ranking misinformative search-results higher than debunking search-results. Next, we analyze the effects of personalization due to account-history, where history is built progressively by performing various real-world user-actions, such as clicking a product. We find evidence of filter-bubble effect in Amazon’s recommendations; accounts performing actions on misinformative products are presented with more misinformation compared to accounts performing actions on neutral and debunking products. Interestingly, once user clicks on a misinformative product, homepage recommendations become more contaminated compared to when user shows an intention to buy that product.

Auditing E-Commerce Platforms for Algorithmically Curated Vaccine Misinformation

Both the problem and the intervention have long histories

The main public health tool during 1918 pandemic? Social distancing

The US vaccine approval for five- to 11-year-olds has brought an end to speculation and dither – and joy to parents

I’ve had a wake-up call on Covid vaccines for children – mine will be first in line

A recent flurry of social media activity regarding the Pfizer vaccine seems aimed at worsening vaccine hesitancy among Christians, particularly evangelicals.

Wild Conspiracy Theory Linking Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine To ‘Lucifer’ Goes Viral

Estimating ‘excess’ fatalities, a more robust analysis method, puts the pandemic’s grim toll between 10m and 19m people

We can be confident there have been far more than 5 million global Covid deaths

Covid-19 has claimed the lives of over 750,000 Americans. That's more than the populations of Alaska, Vermont, Washington DC, or Wyoming. Please, let's not become numb to this tremendous and tragic loss.

Objective: To offer a quantitative risk–benefit analysis oftwo doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among adolescentsin England.Setting: England.Design: Following the risk–benefit analysis methodologycarried out by the US Centers for Disease Control, wecalculated historical rates of hospital admission, IntensiveCare Unit admission and death for ascertained SARS-CoV-2 cases in children aged 12–17 in England. We then usedthese rates alongside a range of estimates for incidence oflong COVID, vaccine efficacy and vaccine-induced myocar-ditis, to estimate hospital and Intensive Care Unit admis-sions, deaths and cases of long COVID over a period of 16weeks under assumptions of high and low case incidence.Participants: All 12–17 year olds with a record of con-firmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in England between 1 July2020 and 31 March 2021 using national linked electronichealth records, accessed through the British HeartFoundation Data Science Centre.Main outcome measures: Hospitalisations, Intensive CareUnit admissions, deaths and cases of long COVID avertedby vaccinating all 12–17 year olds in England over a 16-week period under different estimates of future caseincidence.Results: At high future case incidence of 1000/100,000population/week over 16 weeks, vaccination could avert4430 hospital admissions and 36 deaths over 16 weeks.At the low incidence of 50/100,000/week, vaccinationcould avert 70 hospital admissions and two deaths over16 weeks. The benefit of vaccination in terms ofhospitalisations in adolescents outweighs risks unless caserates are sustainably very low (below 30/100,000 teen-agers/week). Benefit of vaccination exists at any case ratefor the outcomes of death and long COVID, since neitherhave been associated with vaccination to date.Conclusions: Given the current (as at 15 September 2021)high case rates (680/100,000 population/week in 10–19year olds) in England, our findings support vaccination ofadolescents against SARS-CoV2.

Vaccinating adolescents against SARS-CoV-2 in England:a risk–benefit analysis

With Covid cases rising in the UK, should the government be moving forward with Plan B of restrictions?

To Plan B, or not to Plan B?

Mass infection of kids with a virus less than 2 years old is not ethical, not moral, not scientifically evidenced, not socially just & medically risky. There’s no good argument for this. And no, boosting population immunity to protect the adults is not a valid argument. #Childism

10.1136/bmj.n2641

Nisreen A Alwan questions whether the current rates of covid infection in UK school children are acceptable when we have emerging evidence of the virus's lingering health effects

We must call out childism in covid-19 policies

Those suffering from long-term symptoms could qualify for workplace and school accommodations and other support under federal law.

Biden says 'long Covid' could qualify as a disability under federal law

10.1177/25152459211045930

Errors are an inevitable consequence of human fallibility, and researchers are no exception. Most researchers can recall major frustrations or serious time delays due to human errors while collecting, analyzing, or reporting data. The present study is an exploration of mistakes made during the data-management process in psychological research. We surveyed 488 researchers regarding the type, frequency, seriousness, and outcome of mistakes that have occurred in their research team during the last 5 years. The majority of respondents suggested that mistakes occurred with very low or low frequency. Most respondents reported that the most frequent mistakes led to insignificant or minor consequences, such as time loss or frustration. The most serious mistakes caused insignificant or minor consequences for about a third of respondents, moderate consequences for almost half of respondents, and major or extreme consequences for about one fifth of respondents. The most frequently reported types of mistakes were ambiguous naming/defining of data, version control error, and wrong data processing/analysis. Most mistakes were reportedly due to poor project preparation or management and/or personal difficulties (physical or cognitive constraints). With these initial exploratory findings, we do not aim to provide a description representative for psychological scientists but, rather, to lay the groundwork for a systematic investigation of human fallibility in research data management and the development of solutions to reduce errors and mitigate their impact.

The Role of Human Fallibility in Psychological Research: A Survey of Mistakes in Data Management Show all authors

Downing Street fear hospitalisations and deaths among double-vaccinated could rise due to waning immunity

No 10 concerned as 4.5 million eligible people fail to get Covid jab boosters

Mandatory vaccination to be introduced for NHS England’s 1.2 million full-time staff from next year

Covid jabs to be compulsory for NHS staff in England from April

What was claimed £37 billion was found to pay Serco for a failed track and trace system. Our verdict £37 billion is the two-year budget for Test and Trace. The vast majority is spent on testing not tracing and does not go to Serco.

Misleading claims about Serco’s role in Test and Trace resurface

What was claimed The Track and Trace app cost £37 billion. Our verdict The NHS Covid-19 app cost around £76 million in the first year. £37 billion is the total budget for NHS Test and Trace in its first two years.

NHS Covid-19 app is not the third most expensive project ever

What was claimed £37 billion has been spent on NHS Test and Trace so far. Our verdict This is not true. £37 billion is the budget for the project’s first two years. We don’t know exactly how much was spent by early March, but it will be much less.

NHS Test and Trace has not spent £37bn so far

Well worth reading the full statement, which is available here: https://moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/ministerial-statement-by-dr-janil-puthucheary-senior-minister-of-state-ministry-of-health-on-update-on-icu-and-hospital-capacity-1-november-2021

"I would strongly prefer if we can avoid that dreadful scenario. We need to continue to manage the overall number of cases in our population, even as we continue to increase our hospital capacity."

"[M]ore and more cases will translate into more and more ICU beds used, and beyond a certain point that will force us to accept a lower standard of care, and hence have more deaths that could have been prevented."

"What we are trying to do has not yet been done by any other country. We are trying to get to the point where the combination of high vaccination rates, booster jabs & even more boosting from mild infections means that COVID-19 will no longer spread as an epidemic in Singapore."

"We have got to this point in our fight against COVID-19 without excess mortality. We have managed to continue to provide excellent healthcare for all COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. … And we should place a high value on maintaining this standard."

Singapore's Senior Minister of State for Health, Dr Janil Puthucheary, told Parliament on 1 November: "I hope my explanation has helped members understand why although we say we are living with COVID-19, we cannot just open up, and risk having the number of cases shoot up."

this is disturbing: https://twitter.com/dgurdasani1/status/1454383106555842563?s=20… 4/7

depending on interpretation, and interpretation of current UK Covid policy, Singapore is not "the first country" to be trying this 7/7

it's lizard-people-level crazy to think the JCVI meant this: https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1454980187976871941?s=20… 6/7Quote Tweet

this is a reasonable thing to consider: https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1454792162000916481?s=20… 5/7Quote Tweet

it can't possibly be what the JCVI meant with the respective bullet points in their minutes. Here a selection of that debate: 3/7

The JCVI seems to have at least considered the value of childhood infections as providing boosters for adults, sparking intense debate about the ethics of this, whether this makes epidemiological sense, or whether, in fact, it would be so crazy and nonsensical that ...2/7

interestingly the Singapore Health Minister also mentions "boosting through mild infections" - a concept that is currently generating much furore in the UK in the wake of the release of the JCVI minutes on child vaxx decisions 1/n

1. social norms and content promotion that reward carefully worded material. 2. calling out (and sanction?) of misrepresentation 3. onsite training/support to help people appreciate the kinds of linguistic distinctions that matter to science 5/7

I would encourage people to look over the last 48 hours of the JCVI debate as a 'case study' for the micro dynamics of how things go wrong and to spark ideas for building the information environment we need 7/7

4. algorithms for content aggregation and visualisation that help link connected pieces across the unfolding debate -both to promote accuracy and undercut bad faith "flooding the zone" other suggestions? 6/7

it's not new, but it's depressing every time, and when the stakes are so high, we really need something better. So how can we build a platform that avoids this? Some suggested ingredients: 4/7

in no time, everyone is outraged, and discussion has degenerated to exchanges about "the other side", and away from the actual issues themselves that we should be debating. 3/71

important nuance is lost through repeated transmission of messages via actors who do not understand the subtlety in the language and actors who intentionally ignore/distort it 2/7

the current JCVI minutes debate clearly illustrates the problems with Twitter and scientific debate: meaning glossed, hedges and distinctions left behind, claims about arguments conflated with claims about people, paving the way to ramped up, emotive soundbites and claims. 1/7

Misinformation and disinformation campaigns have contributed to the death toll of the COVID-19 pandemic. Internists can effectively counter this and encourage vaccinations.

Busting COVID-19 vaccination myths

Growth advantage and extrapolation of AY.4.2 based on Sanger Institute data in the UK (multilevel multinomial model). Based on this data AY.4.2 seems to have a ~20% growth advantage/week over AY.4 and will become dominant in the UK in December.

ONS figures suggest proportion of people following rules has slipped since summer

One in four 35- to 54-year-olds in England not complying with Covid self-isolation

In England, masks are expected and recommended in crowded and enclosed spaces – but not legally required. Many have abandoned them altogether. What would convince everyone to put them back on?

The psychology of masks: why have so many people stopped covering their faces?

Updated data from Israel. The booster works, without any doubt! Red (empty battery): un-vax Light green (half battery): 2nd dose without the booster Green (full battery): with the booster

10.1038/d41586-021-02978-6

An international team of researchers want to find people who are genetically resistant to SARS-CoV-2, in the hope of developing new drugs and treatments.

The search for people who never get COVID

VLA2001 successfully met both co-primary endpoints Superior neutralizing antibody titer levels compared to active comparator vaccine, AstraZeneca’s AZD1222 (ChAdOx1-S) Neutralizing antibody seroconversion rate above 95% VLA2001 induced broad T-cell responses with antigen-specific IFN-gamma-producing T-cells against the S, M and N proteins. VLA2001 was well tolerated, demonstrating a statistically significant better tolerability profile compared to active comparator vaccine

Valneva Reports Positive Phase 3 Results for Inactivated, Adjuvanted COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate VLA2001

In England, masks are expected and recommended in crowded and enclosed spaces – but not legally required. Many have abandoned them altogether. What would convince everyone to put them back on?

The psychology of masks: why have so many people stopped covering their faces?

Researchers use AI – and witchcraft folklore – to map the coronavirus conspiracy theories that have sprung up

Why people believe Covid conspiracy theories: could folklore hold the answer?

Following the Surgeon General’s July 15 advisory on health misinformation and social media, President Joe Biden remarked that Facebook and other social media platforms are “killing people.” Though Biden quickly backpedaled on his remark, Facebook rebutted it, citing instead its own study that showed increasing “vaccine acceptance” by U.S. Facebook users.So, does Facebook play a role in COVID-19 misinformation? New survey results from researchers at Northwestern, Harvard, Northeastern and Rutgers universities show that it does.

Is Facebook ‘Killing Us’? A new study investigates

Department of Health bosses posted 223 fatalities today, up 23.2 per cent on last Tuesday 's figure of 181Cases also increased, with 43,738 new infections recorded, up 13.5 per cent on the 38,520 recorded last weekAnd the number of people being hospitalised spiked to 921 on Friday, the latest date data is available for

UK's daily Covid deaths hit SEVEN-MONTH high of 223 and cases jump 13% in a week to 43,738 - as it's revealed booster jab rollout has been slowed by CLOSURE of vaccine centres while new 10% more infectious Delta strain takes off

Confusion and controversy surrounding COVID-19 vaccine boosters underscore the importance of journalists’ role in clearly explaining the scientific process to the public. Here are four tips to help you with your reporting.

4 tips for covering COVID-19 vaccine boosters

10.1101/2021.10.13.21264937

Comparative effectiveness of ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines in Health and Social Care workers in England: a cohort study using OpenSAFELY

Objectives To compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines against infection and COVID-19 disease in health and social care workers.Design Cohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial.Setting Linked primary care, hospital, and COVID-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform.Participants 317,341 health and social care workers vaccinated between 4 January and 28 February 2021, registered with a GP practice using the TPP SystmOne clinical information system in England, and not clinically extremely vulnerable.Interventions Vaccination with either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 administered as part of the national COVID-19 vaccine roll-out.Main outcome measures Recorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, or COVID-19 related Accident and Emergency attendance or hospital admission occurring within 20 weeks of vaccination.Results The cumulative incidence of each outcome was similar for both vaccines during the first 20 weeks post-vaccination. The cumulative incidence of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection 6 weeks after vaccination with BNT162b2 was 19.2 per 1000 people (95%CI 18.6 to 19.7) and with ChAdOx1 was 18.9 (95%CI 17.6 to 20.3), representing a difference of -0.24 per 1000 people (95%CI -1.71 to 1.22). The difference in the cumulative incidence per 1000 people of COVID-19 accident and emergency attendance at 6 weeks was 0.01 per 1000 people (95%CI -0.27 to 0.28). For COVID-19 hospital admission, this difference was 0.03 per 1000 people (95%CI -0.22 to 0.27).Conclusions In this cohort of healthcare workers where we would not anticipate vaccine type to be related to health status, we found no substantial differences in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 disease up to 20 weeks after vaccination. Incidence dropped sharply after 3-4 weeks and there were very few COVID-19 hospital attendance and admission events after this period. This is in line with expected onset of vaccine-induced immunity, and suggests strong protection against COVID-19 disease for both vaccines.

Our comparatively good position has been eroded and now, heading into the winter, the data looks truly alarming

Britain’s Covid numbers show we need to move immediately to ‘plan B’

The government’s Covid dashboard has just been updated, and it shows that there have been 52,009 new coronavirus cases. That is the highest daily total on this measure, and the first time the daily tally has topped 50,000, for more than three months. Daily new cases were last at this level on 17 July, when 54,674 were recorded.

UK records more than 50,000 daily Covid cases for first time in three months

10.31234/osf.io/b2qx8

Since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, media and policy makers have speculated about herd immunity and the threshold for numbers of immune citizens needed for reaching it. What are the effects of such numerical goals on willingness to vaccinate? In a large representative sample of unvaccinated Swedes we find that giving a low (60%) compared to a high (90%) threshold have direct effects on beliefs about reaching herd immunity and beliefs about how many others will get vaccinated. Presenting the high threshold makes people believe that herd immunity is harder to reach, compared to the low threshold, yet at the same time people also believe that a higher number of the population will get vaccinated. Since these beliefs affects willingness to vaccinate in opposite directions, some individuals are encouraged and others discouraged depending on the threshold presented. This has consequences for ongoing COVID-19 vaccination and future vaccination campaigns

The effect of herd immunity thresholds on willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19

Losing the battle over best-science guidance early in a crisis: Covid-19 and beyond

Ensuring widespread public exposure to best-science guidance is crucial in a crisis, e.g. Covid-19, climate change. Mapping the emitter-receiver dynamics of Covid-19 guidance among 87 million Facebook users, we uncover a multi-sided battle over exposure that gets lost well before the pandemic's official announcement. By the time Covid-19 vaccines emerge, the mainstream majority -- including many parenting communities -- have moved even closer to more extreme communities. The hidden heterogeneity explains why Facebook's own promotion of best-science guidance also missed key audience segments. A simple mathematical model reproduces these exposure dynamics at the system level. Our findings can be used to tailor guidance at scale while accounting for individual diversity, and to predict tipping point behavior and system-level responses to interventions.

10.31234/osf.io/y85nm

Background Knowing your audience is the first step in an effective public health communication campaign. While previous studies provide broad categories of public intentions to get a COVID-19 vaccine, few systematically segment and identify effective ways to engage with distinct publics to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Methods Using data from a national sample of Australian public (N = 1054) and based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour, a latent class analysis of 23 items was undertaken to identify COVID-19 audience segments for potential future message targeting. Findings We found five different segments on COVID-19 vaccine intentions: Vaccine enthusiasts (28%), supporters (26%), socials (20%), hesitant (15%), and sceptics (10%). While the vaccine hesitants have concerns about safety and side-effects of the vaccine, the sceptics hold additional concerns about the need for a vaccine and dismiss the health risks. Vaccine socials hold less favourable attitudes towards a COVID-19 vaccine but are willing to get one to protect others. These audience segments differ on demographic variables and in their level of trust in mainstream media, scientists and health experts, social media, and family and friends. In particular, we found the most vulnerable—the poor and undereducated—may need further help in understanding the need and importance of COVID-19 vaccination. Interpretation Understanding the COVID-19 vaccine attitudinal and information seeking characteristics of these sub-publics will help inform appropriate messaging campaigns to reach out to vaccine hesitant and sceptics for promoting vaccination. It provides insight into what types of message framing may be effective, through which platforms messages should be provided, and by which trusted sources.

COVID-19 Vaccine Segments in Australia: An Audience Segmentation Analysis to Improve Vaccine Uptake