Search results

This paper examines media coverage of the 2014-15 measles outbreak that began at Disneyland and spread throughout the United States and into Canada and Mexico. Specifically, it focuses on the construction of 'anti-vaxxers' as a central character in the outbreak's unfolding narrative who came to represent a threat to public health and moral order. Although parents who hold strong anti-vaccine views are small in number, media representations of 'anti-vaxxers' as prominent figures fail to capture the broad range of views and behaviours that constitute what we today call 'vaccine hesitancy' and thus delimit our understanding of this increasingly complex health issue.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic brought the production of scientific knowledge onto the public agenda in real-time. News media and commentators analysed the successes and failures of the pandemic response in real-time, bringing the process of scientific inquiry, which is also fraught with uncertainty, onto the public agenda. We examine how Canadian newspapers framed scientific uncertainty in their initial coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic and how journalists made sense of the scientific process. METHODS: We conducted a framing analysis of 1143 news stories and opinion during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a qualitative analysis software, our analysis focused, first, on how scientific uncertainty was framed in hard news and opinion discourse (editorial, op-ed). Second, we compared how specialist health and science reporters discussed scientific evidence versus non-specialist reporters in hard news and columns. RESULTS: Uncertainty emerged as a "master frame" across the sample, and four additional framing strategies were used by reporters and commentators when covering the pandemic: (1), evidence -focusing on presence or absence of it-; (2) transparency and leadership -focusing on the pandemic response-; (3) duelling experts – highlighting disagreement among experts or criticizing public health decisions for not adhering to expert recommendations-; and (4) mixed messaging -criticizing public health communication efforts. While specialist journalists understood that scientific knowledge evolves and the process is fraught with uncertainty, non-specialist reporters and commentators expressed frustration over changing public health guidelines, leading to the politicization of the pandemic response and condemnation of elected officials' decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Managing scientific uncertainty in evolving science-policy situations requires timely and clear communication. Public health officials and political leaders need to provide clear and consistent messages and access to data regarding ...

ObjectivesRed River Métis are Indigenous people hailing from the Canadian Prairies who have historically experienced poor health outcomes due to colonial practices. Researchers from the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) partnered with health services researchers to test whether MMF-led COVID initiatives were associated with access to COVID-19 testing and vaccines.
ApproachWe linked the Métis Population Data-Base from the MMF (to identify Red River Métis) with whole-population COVID testing and vaccination data and health and social services administrative data (for information on sociodemographics and confounders) to complete this retrospective cohort study. We used restricted mean survival time models to test whether COVID-19 vaccination differed between Métis and all other Manitobans (AOM); models adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and other characteristics (age, socioeconomic status, urbanicity, and mental health status). Data were stratified by sex and subsequent effect modification analyses tested whether associations differed by sex and physical health comorbidities.
ResultsCOVID testing rates were lower during the first year of the pandemic among Métis than among AOM. During the second year of the pandemic, this finding was reversed - Métis accessed tests at higher rates. There was no difference between Métis and AOM in accessing first vaccine doses before implementation of MMF-led initiatives. After initiatives were put in place, Métis received their second COVID vaccine, on average, 1.3 (95% CI 1.9-0.6) days sooner than AOM, after adjusting for confounders. Effect modification analyses showed this relationship was concentrated among females – female Métis received their second vaccine 1.7 (2.6-0.8) days sooner than female AOM; differences were non-significant for males. Métis with 2+ comorbidities received their vaccine second 2.9 (5.3-0.5) days sooner than AOM with 2+ comorbidities.
ConclusionPublic health initiatives prioritizing Métis for vaccines improved uptake. Initiatives led by Métis to improve COVID outcomes were critical to supporting Métis during the course of the pandemic. Public health response efforts need to operate from a standpoint that honours Indigenous sovereignty in their design and implementation.