[ad_1]
Recently, false, inaccurate, inaccurate or misleading information about the vaccination campaign in Romania began to appear and go viral in the public space, especially in the online environment. For example, on the social network Facebook the content appeared according to which “in the Baltasar hospital in Bucharest, a nurse dies, one hour after the vaccination! She was healthy and in her prime ””, shows the CNCAV.
Therefore, the National Committee for the Coordination of vaccination activities against Covid-19 provides “some clarifications in this regard.”
“The situation of the vaccines, the secondary effects and their nature is published every day, around 6:00 p.m., by the CNCAV on the official website, www.vaccinare-covid.gov.ro, and sent, for information and publication, to representatives of the media. According to the latest published situation, in Romania, the total number of people vaccinated at the beginning of the vaccination campaign is 10,289, and the total number of side effects (common and mild) is 26 (4 local reactions with pain at the injection site and 22 general reactions (Fever, headache, myalgia, asthenia, urticarial allergies). There were no cases of serious side effects or deaths, “said the source. cited.
In addition, we specify that the “Bagdasar-Arseni” Emergency Clinic Hospital, to which the content seems to refer, does not have a vaccination center and is attached to the Obregia Hospital, where vaccination was not started. Therefore, we specify that the content is completely false, misleading, with the potential to create a negative emotional state (panic, distrust, fear), ”warns CNCAV.
In this context, the Interministerial Committee urges citizens to “follow a few relatively simple steps to verify said content and critically distance themselves from it:
- 1. Avoid consulting information on accounts not assumed that can be said beyond any doubt that it really exists: accounts that do not have a recent image, accounts that do not present credible information about the owner’s personal / professional life, accounts that do not have publications with real people, also from the owner’s personal or professional life, accounts that publish, very often, but on a single topic (such as, in the case that we report, vaccination); In general, there is a good chance that a fake account is accompanied, in the profile picture, by pictures that are based on a known member of the military (people in uniform), an attractive call from the account holder or such -said manifestation of religious feeling.
- 2. Avoid accepting friend requests from these types of accounts and, in general, from people I don’t know, of whom I cannot say with certainty that they really exist and with whom I do not share any specific experience (work, events they met, college or school graduated together).
- 3. Avoid reaction / engagement (comments, likes, distributions) with content from these accounts, even in the situation where the redistribution or comment is precisely contradictory with the respective content. We specify that employment, even for reasons of criticism or contradiction, with content so false or misleading, are mechanisms of viralization, which amplify them and attract even more attention.
- 4. Postpone as long as possible the reaction / commitment to content that comes from dubious sources (see above) and is based on immediate and visceral emotions, reactions of panic, fear, indignation, anger.
- 5. Corroborate the information with other sources: official sources, sources of the main communication media (television, written press, radio), reliable sources (professionals in the field). Regarding vaccination, we suggest consulting the information disseminated by researchers, professionals, doctors of strict specialty – epidemiologists and virologists, whose identity and professional experience can be easily verified.
- 6. We suggest a critical distancing from content that is not collected in any conventional media. Information with credentials is unlikely to begin to be professionally investigated by professional journalists working in the media.
- 7. We suggest that you check as much as possible:
- to. the credibility of the source that published the information;
- b. the name of the Internet domain used; attention to unusual, generic or obscure names, to domains that mimic well-known news websites (mediafax.com.co, compared to the legitimate site: mediafax.ro)
- c. the type of organization / media actor that published the information;
- d. the author of the article (we suggest caution if the information is anonymous);
- and. the quality of the writing and the style of the article (grammar, punctuation and spelling errors, excessive use of the function ALL CAPS, excessive punctuation for a dramatic effect (???,?!?, !!!!… .etc .);
- F. coherence of the text;
- g. the excessive dramatic / emotional character of the text;
- h. publication date;
- i. data / information sources and statements cited (which can be consulted independently) “.
