The danger of denialism: lessons from the Brazilian pandemic

Abstract

Background Scientific denialism has always had harmful consequences for humanity, but with the advent of the pandemic these effects seem to have been accentuated. Main body Unwillingness to accept the facts about the COVID-19 pandemic ascertained by scientists and public health authorities has led to widespread scientific denialism, including the emergence of conspiracy theories of all sorts. Examples are diverse, reaching both developed and developing countries, arriving through populist leaders and the spread of conspiracy theories through social media. Short conclusion It is important to pay attention to the risk of the extremes of this denialism and the possible repercussions, especially in countries that have leaders who agree with these conceptions, such as Brazil and the USA.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Black Communities in Canada

“…Here, our study adds to the research about public policy responses to COVID-19. Previous research has considered leadership complicity in the spread of misinformation and disinformation (especially in countries such as the United States) [ 27 , 28 , 29 ]. In Canada, these critiques have, by and large, not charged governments with malicious denialism.…”

Brazil and the (Un)Natural Selection of SARS-CoV-2

“…Check for updates country's health system, crowded ICUs, lack of medicines, respirators, etc. While Bolsonaro continues his denialist fate [6] with the indications of ineffective medicines, against social distancing and, believe me, doubting the effectiveness of the masks. In parallel, the Brazilian vaccination program remains confused, as the president refused vaccines the previous year, with a shortage of immunizers and few positive perspectives, as Brazil would now be at the end of a world demand queue.…”

COVID-19 in a Pre-Omicron Era: A Cross-Sectional Immuno-Epidemical and Genomic Evaluation

“…Moreover, the notification rate in Brazil was 9.9%, in which the population did not have hospital resources of very high demand and did not acquire the minimum knowledge necessary to deal with the disease [ 5 ]. The inefficiency of communication to the population about the reliability of tests was commonly present, not emphasizing the functioning and importance of serological screening tests to the population.…”