Myths and stigma about ADHD contribute to poorer mental health for those affected

Posted on June 30, 2021 by particularkev

David Coghill, The University of Melbourne; Alison Poulton, University of Sydney; Louise Brown, Curtin University, and Mark Bellgrove, Monash UniversityAround one in 30 Australians (or 3.4% of the population) have attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Yet it remains a poorly understood and highly stigmatised disorder.

Our new paper, which reviews the research on community attitudes about ADHD, found misconceptions are common and affect the way people with ADHD are treated and see themselves.

Stigma is an underestimated risk factor for other negative outcomes in ADHD, including the development of additional mental health disorders such as anxiety, depression, alcohol and substance abuse, and eating disorders.

Stigma is also likely to contribute to the increased risk of suicide, with people with ADHD three times more likely than the rest of the population to take their own life.

Early recognition and treatment of ADHD significantly improves the physical, mental and social outcomes of people with the condition who, like everyone else, deserve to live full and rewarding lives.

No, ADHD isn’t caused by too much TV

Our review of the research found many people erroneously attribute ADHD symptoms – particularly in children – to exposure to TV or the internet, lack of parental affection, or being from a broken home.

Rather, ADHD is a complex disorder that results from inherited, genetically determined differences in the way the brain develops.

People with ADHD have persistent patterns of hyperactive, impulsive and inattentive behaviour that are out of step with the rest of their development. This can affect their ability to function and participate in activities at home, at school or work, and in the broader community.

Boy looks at computer screen with hand in hair, thinking. — ADHD can affect your ability to concentrate.
Shutterstock

There are clear criteria for diagnosing ADHD, and a diagnosis should only be made by a specialist clinician following a comprehensive medical, developmental and mental health review.

No, ADHD isn’t routinely overdiagnosed

Our review of the research found three-quarters of Australian study participants believe the disorder is overdiagnosed.

Based on the international research, an estimated 850,000 Australians are living with ADHD.

Yet current rates of diagnosis are much lower than this, particularly in adults where fewer than one in ten have received a diagnosis.

There is also widespread scepticism in the community about the use of medicines to treat ADHD.

Medication is only one part of the management of ADHD which should always include educational, psychological and social support.

Clinical evidence does, however, support the use of prescription medications as a key part of the treatment for ADHD. And there is evidence to show these medications are seen as helpful by those who take them.

Although rates of medication treatment have increased over the years, less than one-third of Australian children with ADHD and fewer than one in ten adults with the condition are currently receiving medication. This is much lower than expected, based on international guidelines.

How this stigma feels

People with ADHD can struggle with day-to-day things other people find easy, with little understanding and acknowledgement from others.

Typical examples include butting in to others’ conversations and activities, leaving tasks half done, being forgetful, losing things, and not being able to follow instructions.

The response to these behaviours from family, teachers and friends is often negative, critical and relentless. They’re constantly reminded of just how much they struggle with the day-to-day things most people find easy.

Teenage boy in a hoodie stands against a wall, looking down — People with ADHD know they’re being judged.
Shutterstock

Our review found young people are particularly affected by this judgement and stigma. They’re aware they’re viewed by others in a negative light because of their ADHD and they commonly feel different, devalued, embarrassed, unconfident, inadequate, or incompetent.

Some respond to this constant criticism by acting out with disruptive and delinquent behaviours, which of course usually just escalates the situation.

Stigma can be a barrier to treatment

The perception and experience of stigma can influence whether a parent decides to have their child assessed for ADHD, and can leave parents underestimating the risks associated with untreated ADHD.

The confusion about what parents should believe can also affect their ability to make informed decisions about the diagnosis and treatment of their child. This is concerning because parents play a vital role in ensuring health professionals properly recognise and support their child’s health needs.

When diagnosis is delayed until adulthood, people with ADHD are four times more likely to die early than the rest of the population. This not only reflects the increased risk of suicide, but also an increase in serious accidents which arise due to impulsive behaviours.

When we treat people with ADHD, many of these problems dramatically improve. It’s not uncommon for someone who has recently started on treatment to say, “wow, I didn’t know life was meant to be like this”.

Treatment also improves the physical, mental and social well-being for children and adults with the disorder.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or visit Headspace.

David Coghill, Financial Markets Foundation Chair of Developmental Mental Health, The University of Melbourne; Alison Poulton, Senior Lecturer, Brain Mind Centre Nepean, University of Sydney; Louise Brown, PhD candidate, Curtin University, and Mark Bellgrove, Professor in Cognitive Neuroscience, Director of Research, Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health; President Australian ADHD Professionals Association (AADPA, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Laws making social media firms expose major COVID myths could help Australia’s vaccine rollout

Posted on January 29, 2021 by particularkev

Tauel Harper, University of Western Australia

With a vaccine rollout impending, key groups have backed calls for the Australian government to force social media platforms to share details about popular coronavirus misinformation.

An open letter was put forth by independent group Reset Australia. It was endorsed by the Doherty Institute, Immunisation Coalition and Immunisation Foundation of Australia, along with the research group I’m working with, Coronavax — which reports community concerns about the COVID-19 vaccination program to government and health workers.

The issue of coronavirus and vaccine-related misinformation should not be understated. That said, big tech companies need to be engaged the right way to help the Australian public avoid what could potentially be a lifetime of health problems.

A leaderboard for COVID myths

We’re living in a dangerous time for both journalism and public education. We don’t have the legal infrastructure or public forums required to address the spread of coronavirus misinformation. Reset’s proposal intends to address these shortcomings, to better regulate this content in Australia.

It states there should be a mandate given to internet service providers to provide more details on the highest trending online posts spreading misinformation about COVID.

These “live lists” would be updated in real time and would let politicians, researchers, medical experts, journalists and the public keep track of which communities are being exposed to coronavirus and vaccine-related lies and what the major stories are.

The proposal suggests the eSafety commissioner should determine how the information is shared publicly to help prevent the potential victimisation of particular individuals.

Conspiracies can slip through the cracks

Many people rely on news (or what they think is news) presented on social media. Unlike traditional journalism, this isn’t fact-checked and has no editorial oversight to ensure accuracy. Moreover, the vast scale of this misinformation extends beyond platforms’ best efforts to curb it.

Since last year, a host of fake coronavirus cures have circulated and been sold illegally on the dark web. Among these was one hoax ‘cure’ in the form of ‘blood’ from supposedly recovered coronavirus patients.
Shutterstock

While social media analytic sites such as CrowdTangle provide some insight for researchers, it’s not enough.

For example, the data CrowdTangle shares from Facebook is limited to public posts in large public pages and groups. We can see engagement for these posts (numbers of likes and comments) but not reach (how many people have seen a particular post).

Reset’s open letter recommends extending access provision to data across the entire social networking site, including (in Facebook’s case) posts on people’s personal profiles (not to be confused with private conversations via Facebook Messenger).

While this does raise privacy concerns, the system would be set up so personal identifiers are removed. Instead of paying social media platforms in exchange for data, we would be putting pressure on them via the law and, at base, their “social license to operate”.

Taking down extremists isn’t the goal

Far-right conspiracy group QAnon has managed to entrench itself in certain pockets in Australia. Its believers claim there is a “deep state” plot against former US President Donald Trump.

This group’s conspiracies have extended to include the bogus claim that COVID is an invention of political elites to ensure compliance from the people and usher in oppressive rules. As the theory goes, the vaccine itself is also a tool for indoctrination and/or population control.

Public figures have further amplified the conspiracies, with celebrity chef Pete Evans seemingly spearheading the celebrity faction of the QAnon “cause” in Australia.

The real value of Reset’s policy recommendation, however, is not in trying to change these peoples’ views. Rather, what researchers require are more details on trends and levels of engagement with certain types of content.

One focus would be to identify groups of people exposed to misinformation who could potentially be swayed in the direction of conspiracies.

If we can figure out which particular demographics are be more involved in the spreading of misinformation, or perhaps more vulnerable to it, this would help with efforts to engage with these communities.

We already know young people are generally less confident about receiving a COVID vaccine than people over 65, but we’ve less insight on what their concerns are, or whether there are particular rumours circulating online that are making them wary of vaccinations.

Once these are identified, they can be prioritised in the minds of health workers and policy makers, such as by creating educational content in a group’s specific language to help dispel any myths.

Pressure on platforms is mounting

There is the argument that sharing links to online misinformation could help spread it further. We’ve already seen unscrupulous journalists repeat popular terms from online conspiracists (such as “Dictator Dan”, in reference to Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews) in their own coverage to engage a particular audience.

But ultimately, the information being highlighted is already out there, so it’s better for us to take it on openly and honestly. It’s also not just a matter of monitoring misinformation, but also monitoring legitimate public concern about any vaccine side effects.

The increased visibility of the public’s concerns will force government, researchers, journalists and health professionals to engage more directly with those concerns.

Pfizer vaccine's on conveyor belt — The Therapeutic Goods Administration has granted provisional approval for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine to be rolled out in Australia. It’s the first receive regulatory approval.
Shutterstock

The goal now is to invite Facebook, Twitter and Google to help us develop a tool that highlights public issues while also protecting users’ privacy.

Compelled by Australian law, the platforms will likely be concerned about their legal liabilities for any data passed into the public domain. This is understandable, considering the Cambridge Analytica debacle happened because Facebook was too open with users’ data.

Then again, Facebook already has CrowdTangle and Twitter has also been relatively amendable in the fight against COVID misinformation. There are good reasons to suggest these platforms will continue to invest in fighting misinformation, even if just to protect their reputation and profits.

Like it or not, social media have changed the way we discuss issues of public importance — and have certainly changed the game for public communication. What Reset Australia is proposing is an important step in addressing the spread and influence of COVID misinformation in our communities.

Tauel Harper, Lecturer, Media and Communication, UWA, University of Western Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

I can’t get sunburnt through glass, shade or in water, right? 5 common sunburn myths busted

Posted on January 4, 2021 by particularkev

Elke Hacker, Queensland University of Technology and Louise Baldwin, Queensland University of Technology

Despite decades of public health campaigns, skin cancer remains a major threat to health in Australia, with more cases diagnosed each year than all other cancers combined.

Skin cancer rates remain high and sunburn is all too common in Australia.

Our research looks at how best to inform people about the hazards of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, including by evaluating and testing shade, as well as the development of wearable UV indicators including stickers and wristbands. While this technology can help to improve people’s sun protection habits, we continue to come up against some common myths about sunburn.

As we’re in the middle of summer, it seems a good time to debunk some of these.

Myth 1: “You can’t get burnt in the shade”

Effective shade can provide protection from the Sun’s UV rays, but we can still get burnt in the shade.

Shade materials with holes or gaps can allow penetration by UV radiation.

The same rule applies for tree shade, with denser foliage and wider canopies providing better protection than trees with sparse foliage and dappled sunlight.

Similarly, solid roof structures with wide overhangs and little sky view provide greater UV radiation protection than smaller structures.

Reflected UV radiation is another factor that means you’re not always safe in the shade. The Sun’s rays reflect from light-coloured surfaces and can bounce back under shade.

Light surfaces, such as concrete, light-coloured paint or metallic surfaces, reflect more than dark ones. Sand can reflect as much as 25% of UV radiation. This means if you’re sitting under a beach umbrella, UV radiation can still damage your skin, even though you feel like you’re covered in the shade.

Woman sitting at the beach under an umbrella — Sand reflects up to 25% of UV radiation.
Shutterstock

Myth 2: “You’re safe from the sun when in water”

Up to 40% of total UV radiation hits the body even half a metre below the surface of the water, according to SunSmart.

Ordinarily, you would have to dive at least 2.5m inshore and 4.5m in offshore coastal waters to avoid harmful UV radiation. This is because offshore waters tend to be clearer, so UV can penetrate further, whereas inshore waters tend to have sediment and nutrients that can cause a rapid decline in UV.

When swimming, you may not notice when your skin is burning due to the cooling effect of water. Reflective surfaces around water environments can also amplify UV, such as concrete or other hard surfaces around a swimming pool.

The importance of adequate sun protection when participating in water-based activities is highlighted by the rate of sunburn in Queenslanders, with 45% of children sunburnt in the previous 12 months and 69% of these sunburns acquired during a water-based activity.

Myth 3: “Exercise makes my skin red hot, not the sun”

You might often hear people say, when they return from exercise, that they’re red only because they’ve been running. While this does occur, redness from exercise usually dissipates quickly — so if you’re still red in the 24 hours after exercise, it’s sunburn.

When you exercise, your body temperature increases and your body’s natural mechanism is to cool down by carrying blood towards the skin’s surface, causing one to sweat and cool off.

Sweat washes sunscreen away and towelling down wipes off sunscreen.

Regular reapplication of a water-resistant sunscreen is vital. Work-out tan lines are signs of skin damage. Each time our skin gets damaged we greatly increase our risk for skin cancer.

Person sweating in the sun — Sweat can wash sunscreen away. If you don’t reapply regularly, you risk skin damage.
Shutterstock

Myth 4: “That’s not sunburn, it’s windburn”

Windburn can make your skin red, but in Australia, windburn is pretty rare. It’s more likely to occur in instances like skiing, by very windy, cold and dry conditions, with dense mountain clouds and minimal or no sunlight. In Australia, it’s much more likely to be sunburn.

What’s more, high winds can actually increase the likelihood of getting sunburn. Wind dries out and weakens the outer layer of skin. Wind force can make these dead skin cells fall off.

When you apply sunscreen, it coats this outer layer of skin. As wind brushes these skin cells away your sunscreen goes with it, leaving unprotected skin to be burnt by the sun.

Using sun-protective clothing and reapplying sunscreen are the best ways to avoid skin damage when it’s windy.

Myth 5: “You can’t get burnt in the car through a window”

Often, glass used in car side windows is untinted. It reduces UV radiation but doesn’t completely block transmission.

This means you can still get skin damage if you spend a long time in the car next to an untinted side window. Tinted windows can help reduce the amount of UV that hits your skin, and the rule of thumb is that the darker the tint, the more it protects — it’s worth noting, though, that legally you can’t tint your whole front window in Australia, which is obviously the biggest window in the car.

More commonly, however, people are sunburnt in cars when they have the side windows down and are exposed to a short period of high levels of UV radiation.

A person driving a car with their arm out the window — It is possible to get sunburnt with the windows up in a car. But it’s more common to get burnt when you’ve wound down the windows.
Shutterstock

Simple solutions are the five sun-safe measures — slip, slop, slap, seek, slide:

slip on a long-sleeved shirt. If you’re in water, this might include a rashie or wetsuit.
slop on an SPF 30 or higher sunscreen, and reapply at least every two hours, or sooner after swimming or sweating
slap on a broad-brimmed hat
seek shade
slide on sunnies.

Elke Hacker, Research Fellow, Queensland University of Technology and Louise Baldwin, Senior Research Fellow, School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Young men are more likely to believe COVID-19 myths. So how do we actually reach them?

Posted on August 11, 2020 by particularkev

Carissa Bonner, University of Sydney; Brooke Nickel, University of Sydney, and Kristen Pickles, University of Sydney

If the media is anything to go by, you’d think people who believe coronavirus myths are white, middle-aged women called Karen.

But our new study shows a different picture. We found men and people aged 18-25 are more likely to believe COVID-19 myths. We also found an increase among people from a non-English speaking background.

While we’ve heard recently about the importance of public health messages reaching people whose first language isn’t English, we’ve heard less about reaching young men.

What did we find?

Sydney Health Literacy Lab has been running a national COVID-19 survey of more than 1,000 social media users each month since Australia’s first lockdown.

A few weeks in, our initial survey showed younger people and men were more likely to think the benefit of herd immunity was covered up, and the threat of COVID-19 was exaggerated.

People who agreed with such statements were less likely to want to receive a future COVID-19 vaccine.

In June, after restrictions eased, we asked social media users about more specific myths. We found:

men and younger people were more likely to believe prevention myths, such as hot temperatures or UV light being able to kill the virus that causes COVID-19
people with lower education and more social disadvantage were more likely to believe causation myths, such as 5G being used to spread the virus
younger people were more likely to believe cure myths, such as vitamin C and hydroxychloroquine being effective treatments.

We need more targeted research with young Australians, and men in particular, about why some of them believe these myths and what might change their mind.

Although our research has yet to be formally peer-reviewed, it reflects what other researchers have found, both in Australia and internationally.

An Australian poll in May found similar patterns, in which men and younger people believed a range of myths more than other groups.

In the UK, younger people are more likely to hold conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19. American men are also more likely to agree with COVID-19 conspiracy theories than women.

Why is it important to reach this demographic?

We need to reach young people with health messaging for several reasons. In Australia, young people:

are less likely to have symptoms, so they are less likely to meet testing criteria such as having a sore throat, fever or cough
when they do present for testing, are more likely to test positive
are likely to have more social contacts through seeing friends more often or having service jobs. So the potential for spreading COVID-19 is greater, putting extra pressure on contact tracing
can potentially be hospitalised with COVID-19, some with severe complications despite their age.

The Victorian and New South Wales premiers have appealed to young people to limit socialising.

But is this enough when young people are losing interest in COVID-19 news? How many 20-year-old men follow Daniel Andrews on Twitter, or watch Gladys Berejiklian on television?

How can we reach young people?

We need to involve young people in the design of COVID-19 messages to get the delivery right, if we are to convince them to socialise less and follow prevention advice. We need to include them rather than blame them.

We can do this by testing our communications on young people or running consumer focus groups before releasing them to the public. We can include young people on public health communications teams.

We can also borrow strategies from marketing. For example, we know how tobacco companies use social media to effectively target young people. Paying popular influencers on platforms such as TikTok to promote reliable information is one option.

We can target specific communities to reach young men who might not access mainstream media, for instance, gamers who have many followers on YouTube.

We also know humour can be more effective than serious messages to counteract science myths.

Some great examples

There are social media campaigns happening right now to address COVID-19, which might reach more young men than traditional public health methods.

NSW Health has recently started a campaign #Itest4NSW encouraging young people to upload videos to social media in support of COVID-19 testing.

The United Nations is running the global Verified campaign involving an army of volunteers to help spread more reliable information on social media. This may be a way to reach private groups on WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, where misinformation spreads under the radar.

Telstra is using Australian comedian Mark Humphries to address 5G myths in a satirical way (although this would probably have more credibility if it didn’t come from a vested interest).

Telstra is using comedian Mark Humphries to dispel 5G coronavirus myths.

Finally, tech companies like Facebook are partnering with health organisations to flag misleading content and prioritise more reliable information. But this is just a start to address the huge problem of misinformation in health.

But we need more

We can’t expect young men to access reliable COVID-19 messages from people they don’t know, through media they don’t use. To reach them, we need to build new partnerships with the influencers they trust and the social media companies that control their information.

It’s time to change our approach to public health communication, to counteract misinformation and ensure all communities can access, understand and act on reliable COVID-19 prevention advice.

Carissa Bonner, Research Fellow, University of Sydney; Brooke Nickel, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of Sydney, and Kristen Pickles, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

5 COVID-19 myths politicians have repeated that just aren’t true

Posted on July 14, 2020 by particularkev

The purveyors of these myths aren’t doing the country any favors.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Geoffrey Joyce, University of Southern California

The number of new COVID-19 cases in the U.S. has jumped to around 50,000 a day, and the virus has killed more than 130,000 Americans. Yet, I still hear myths about the infection that has created the worst public health crisis in America in a century.

The purveyors of these myths, including politicians who have been soft peddling the impact of the coronavirus, aren’t doing the country any favors.

Here are five myths I hear as director of health policy at the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center that I would like to put to rest.

Myth: COVID-19 is not much worse than the flu

President Donald Trump and plenty of pundits predicted early on that COVID-19 would prove no more lethal than a bad flu. Some used that claim to argue that stay-at-home orders and government-imposed lockdowns were un-American and a gross overreaction that would cost more lives than they saved.

By the end of June, however, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that national antibody testing indicated 5% to 8% of Americans had already been infected with the virus. With over 130,000 confirmed COVID-19-related deaths – and that’s likely an undercount – the case fatality rate is around 0.49% to 0.78% or about four to eight times that of the flu.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who also downplayed COVID-19 as the death toll grew, calling it a “little flu,” announced on July 7 that he had tested positive for the coronavirus.

Myth: Cases are increasing because testing is increasing

At one point, the idea that COVID-19 case numbers were high because of an increase in testing made intuitive sense, especially in the early stages of the pandemic when people showing up for tests were overwhelmingly showing symptoms of possible infection. More testing meant health officials were aware of more illnesses that would have otherwise gone under the radar. And testing predominately sick and symptomatic people can result in an overestimate of its virulence.

Now, with millions of tests conducted and fewer than 10% coming back positive, the U.S. knows what it is facing. Testing today is essential to finding the people who are infected and getting them isolated.

Unfortunately, Trump has been a leading purveyor of the myth that we test too much. Fortunately, his medical advisers disagree.

Myth: Lockdowns were unnecessary

Given the current spike in infections after reopening the economy, more people are arguing that the lockdowns were unsuccessful in crushing the virus and shouldn’t have been implemented at all. But what would the country look like today if state governments had tried to build herd immunity by letting the disease spread rather than promoting social distancing, prohibiting large gatherings and telling the elderly to stay home?

Most epidemiologists who study pandemics believe that reaching herd immunity could only be achieved at enormous cost in terms of illness and death. About 60% or 70% of Americans would have to become infected before the spread of the virus diminished. That would result in 1 to 2 million U.S. deaths and 5 to 10 million hospitalizations.

These are horrific, yet conservative estimates, given that mortality rates would surely rise if that many people were infected and hospitals were overrun.

Myth: The epidemiological models are always wrong

It is not surprising that many people are confused by the proliferation of predictions about the course of the virus. How many people become infected depends on how individuals, governments and institutions respond, which is hard to predict.

Faced with the warning early in the pandemic that 1 to 2 million Americans could die if the U.S. simply let the coronavirus run its course, federal and state governments imposed restrictions to constrain the spread of the virus. Then, they relaxed those restrictions as new cases ebbed and pressure mounted to reopen the economy.

Now, they must consider reimposing some of those restrictions as infection rates rise in a majority of states, including Texas, Arizona, Florida and California. The models were based on data and assumptions at that time, and likely influenced responses which in turn changed underlying conditions. For example, new cases of COVID-19 are rising in the U.S., while fatalities are falling. This reflects a shift in infection rates toward younger populations, as well as improved treatment as providers learn more about the virus.

Just like an investment disclaimer that past returns do not guarantee future performance, modeling a pandemic should be seen as suggestive of what might happen given current information and not a law of nature.

Myth: It’s a second wave

Sadly, the myth here is that we have contained the virus enough to buy time to prepare for a second wave. In fact, the first wave just keeps getting bigger.

A second wave would require a trough in the first wave, but there is little evidence of that from either an epidemiologic or economic perspective.

During the 1918-1919 flu pandemic, the weekly UK death toll from influenza and pneumonia, shown here, reflected three clear waves.
Taubenberger JK, Morens DM. 1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(1)

The U.S. recorded a record number of new cases during the first week of July, exceeding 50,000 per day for four straight days. The rising number of cases led several states to halt or roll back their reopening plans in hopes of stemming the spread of the virus.

Meanwhile, most consumers are reticent to return to “normal” economic activity: Fewer than one-third of adults surveyed by Morning Consult in early July were comfortable going to a shopping mall. Only 35% were comfortable going out to eat, and 18% were comfortable going to the gym. For almost half of the population, an effective treatment or vaccine may be the only way they will feel comfortable returning to “normal” economic activity.

COVID-19 is an immediate threat that requires a unified, science-based response from governments and citizens to be successful. But it is also an opportunity to rethink how we prepare for future pandemics. Some misinformation is inevitable as a new virus emerges, but perpetuating myths for political or other reasons ultimately costs lives.

[The Conversation’s most important coronavirus headlines, weekly in a new science newsletter.]

Geoffrey Joyce, Director of Health Policy, USC Schaeffer Center, and Associate Professor, University of Southern California

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

When a virus goes viral: pros and cons to the coronavirus spread on social media

Posted on March 22, 2020 by particularkev

Axel Bruns, Queensland University of Technology; Daniel Angus, Queensland University of Technology; Timothy Graham, Queensland University of Technology, and Tobias R. Keller, Queensland University of Technology

News and views about coronavirus has spread via social media in a way that no health emergency has done before.

Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Tik Tok and Instagram have played critical roles in sharing news and information, but also in disseminating rumours and misinformation.

Getting the Message Out

Early on, snippets of information circulated on Chinese social media platforms such as Weibo and WeChat, before state censors banned discussions. These posts already painted a grim picture, and Chinese users continue to play cat and mouse with the Internet police in order to share unfiltered information.

As the virus spread, so did the social media conversation. On Facebook and Twitter, discussions have often taken place ahead of official announcements: calls to cancel the Australian Formula One Grand Prix were trending on Twitter days before the official decision.

Similarly, user-generated public health explainers have circulated while official government agencies in many countries discuss campaign briefs with advertising agencies.

Many will have come across (and, hopefully, adopted) hand-washing advice set to the lyrics of someone’s favourite song:

Widespread circulation of graphs has also explained the importance of “flattening the curve” and social distancing.

Debunking myths

Social media have been instrumental in responding to COVID-19 myths and misinformation. Journalists, public health experts, and users have combined to provide corrections to dangerous misinformation shared in US President Donald Trump’s press conferences:

Other posts have highlighted potentially deadly assumptions in the UK government’s herd immunity approach to the crisis:

Users have also pointed out inconsistencies in the Australian cabinet’s response to Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton’s coronavirus diagnosis.

The circulation of such content through social media is so effective because we tend to pay more attention to information we receive through our networks of social contacts.

Similarly, professional health communicators like Dr Norman Swan have been playing an important role in answering questions and amplifying public health messages, while others have set up resources to keep the public informed on confirmed cases:

Even just seeing our leaders’ poor hygienic practices ridiculed might lead us to take better care ourselves:

Some politicians, like Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, blandly dismiss social media channels as a crucial source of crisis information, despite more than a decade’s research showing their importance.

This is deeply unhelpful: they should be embracing social media channels as they seek to disseminate urgent public health advice.

Stoking fear

The downside of all that user-driven sharing is that it can lead to mass panics and irrational behaviour – as we have seen with the panic-buying of toiletpaper and other essentials.

The panic spiral spins even faster when social media trends are amplified by mainstream media reporting, and vice versa: even only a handful of widely shared images of empty shelves in supermarkets might lead consumers to buy what’s left, if media reporting makes the problem appear much larger than it really is.

News stories and tweets showing empty shelves are much more news- and share-worthy than fully stocked shelves: they’re exceptional. But a focus on these pictures distorts our perception of what is actually happening.

The promotion of such biased content by the news media then creates a higher “viral” potential, and such content gains much more public attention than it otherwise would.

Levels of fear and panic are already higher during times of crisis, of course. As a result, some of us – including journalists and media outlets – might also be willing to believe new information we would otherwise treat with more scepticism. This skews the public’s risk perception and makes us much more susceptible to misinformation.

A widely shared Twitter post showed how panic buying in (famously carnivorous) Glasgow had skipped the vegan food section:

Closer inspection revealed the photo originated from Houston during Hurricane Harvey in 2017 (the dollar signs on the food prices are a giveaway).

This case also illustrates the ability of social media discussion to self-correct, though this can take time, and corrections may not travel as far as initial falsehoods. The potential for social media to stoke fears is measured by the difference in reach between the two.

The spread of true and false information is also directly affected by the platform architecture: the more public the conversations, the more likely it is that someone might encounter a falsehood and correct it.

In largely closed, private spaces like WhatsApp, or in closed groups or private profile discussions on Facebook, we might see falsehoods linger for considerably longer. A user’s willingness to correct misinformation can also be affected by their need to maintain good relationships within their community. People will often ignore misinformation shared by friends and family.

And unfortunately, the platforms’ own actions can also make things worse: this week, Facebook’s efforts to control “fake news” posts appeared to affect legitimate stories by mistake.

Rallying cries

Their ability to sustain communities is one of the great strengths of social media, especially as we are practising social distancing and even self-isolation. The internet still has a sense of humour which can help ease the ongoing tension and fear in our communities:

Younger generations are turning to newer social media platforms such as TikTok to share their experiences and craft pandemic memes. A key feature of TikTok is the uploading and repurposing of short music clips by platform users – music clip It’s Corona Time has been used in over 700,000 posts.

We have seen substantial self help efforts conducted via social media: school and university teachers who have been told to transition all of their teaching to online modes at very short notice, for example, have begun to share best-practice examples via the #AcademicTwitter hashtag.

The same is true for communities affected by event shutdowns and broader economic downturns, from freelancers to performing artists. Faced with bans on mass gatherings, some artists are finding ways to continue their work: providing access to 600 live concerts via digital concert halls or streaming concerts live on Twitter.

Such patterns are not new: we encountered them in our research as early as 2011, when social media users rallied together during natural disasters such as the Brisbane floods, Christchurch earthquakes, and Sendai tsunami to combat misinformation, amplify the messages of official emergency services organisations, and coordinate community activities.

Especially during crises, most people just want themselves and their community to be safe.

Axel Bruns, Professor, Creative Industries, Queensland University of Technology; Daniel Angus, Associate Professor in Digital Communication, Queensland University of Technology; Timothy Graham, Senior Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology, and Tobias R. Keller, Visiting Postdoc, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

9 ways to talk to people who spread coronavirus myths

Posted on February 14, 2020 by particularkev

Claire Hooker, University of Sydney

The spread of misinformation about the novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19, seems greater than the spread of the infection itself.

The World Health Organisation (WHO), government health departments and others are trying to alert people to these myths.

But what’s the best way to tackle these if they come up in everyday conversation, whether that’s face-to-face or online? Is it best to ignore them, jump in to correct them, or are there other strategies we could all use?

Public health officials expect misinformation about disease outbreaks where people are frightened. This is particularly so when a disease is novel and the science behind it is not yet clear. It’s also the case when we still don’t know how many people are likely to become sick, have a life-threatening illness or die.

Yet we can all contribute to the safe control of the disease and to minimising its social and economic impacts by addressing misinformation when we encounter it.

To avoid our efforts backfiring, we need to know how to do this effectively and constructively.

What doesn’t work

Abundant research shows what doesn’t work. Telling people not to panic or their perceptions and beliefs are incorrect can actually strengthen their commitment to their incorrect views.

Over-reactions are common when new risks emerge and these over-reactions will pass. So, it’s often the best choice to not engage in the first place.

What can I do?

If you wish to effectively counter misinformation, you need to pay more attention to your audience than to the message you want to convey. See our tips below.

Next, you need to be trusted.

People only listen to sources they trust. This involves putting in the time and effort to make sure your knowledge is correct and reliable; discussing information fairly (what kind of information would make you change your own mind?); and being honest enough to admit when you don’t know, and even more importantly, when you are wrong.

Here’s how all this might work in practice.

1. Understand how people perceive and react to risks

We all tend to worry more about risks we perceive to be new, uncertain, dreaded, and impact a large group in a short time – all features of the new coronavirus.

Our worries increase significantly if we do not feel we, or the governments acting for us, have control over the virus.

2. Recognise people’s concerns

People can’t process information unless they see their worries being addressed.

So instead of offering facts (“you won’t catch coronavirus from your local swimming pool”), articulate their worry (“you’ve caught colds in swimming pools before, and now you’re worried someone might transmit the virus before they know they are infected”).

Being heard helps people re-establish a sense of control.

3. Be aware of your own feelings

Usually when we want to correct someone, it’s because we’re worried about the harms their false beliefs will cause.

But if we are emotional, what we communicate is not our knowledge, but our disrespect for the other person’s views. This usually produces a defensive reaction.

Manage your own outrage first before jumping in to correct others. This might mean saving a discussion for another day.

4. Ask why someone is worried

If you ask why someone is worried, you might discover your assumptions about that person are wrong.

Explaining their concerns to you helps people explore their own views. They might become aware of what they don’t know or of how unlikely their information sounds.

5. Remember, the facts are going to change

Because there is still considerable uncertainty about how severe the epidemic will be, information and the government’s response to it is going to change.

So you will need to frequently update your own views. Know where to find reliable information.

For instance, state and federal health departments, the WHO and the US Centers for Disease Control websites provide authoritative and up-to-date information.

6. Admit when you’re wrong

Being wrong is likely in an uncertain situation. If you are wrong, say so early.

If you asked your family or employees to take avoidance measures you now realise aren’t really necessary, then admit it and apologise. This helps restore the trust you need to communicate effectively the next time you need to raise an issue.

7. Politely provide your own perspective

Phrases like, “here’s why I am not concerned about that” or “I actually feel quite confident about doing X or Y” offer ways to communicate your knowledge without attacking someone else’s views.

You can and should be explicit about what harms you worry misinformation can cause. An example could be, “I’m worried that avoiding Chinese restaurants will really hurt their business. I’m really conscious of wanting to support Chinese Australians right now.”

8. On social media, model the behaviour you want to see

It’s harder to be effective on social media, where outrage, not listening, is common. Often your goal might be to promote a reasoned, civil discussion, not to defend one particular belief over another. Use very reliable links.

9. Don’t make it worse online

Your online comment can unintentionally reinforce misinformation, for example by giving it more prominence. Check the Debunking Handbook for some strategies to avoid this.

Make sure your posts or comments are polite, specific, factual and very brief.

Acknowledging common values or points of connection by using phrases such as “I’m worried about my grandmother, too”, or by being supportive (“It’s so great that you’re proactive about looking after your staff”), can help.

Remember why this is important

The ability to respond to emergencies rests on having civil societies. The goal is to keep relationships constructive and dialogue open – not to be right.

Claire Hooker, Senior Lecturer and Coordinator, Health and Medical Humanities, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

4½ myths about sunscreen and why they’re wrong

Posted on January 6, 2020 by particularkev

Ouch! Here’s the evidence to bust some myths about sunscreen. Now, there’s no excuse to look like a rock lobster this summer.
from www.shutterstock.com

Katie Lee, The University of Queensland and Monika Janda, The University of Queensland

Many Australians are reluctant to use sunscreen, even though it’s an important element in preventing the skin cancers that affect about two in three of us at some time in our lives.

The Cancer Council says myths about sunscreens contribute to this reluctance.

Here are 4½ sunscreen myths and what the evidence really says. Confused about the ½? Well, it’s a myth most of the time, but sometimes it’s true.

Myth #1. It’s bad for my bones

Many Australians are concerned using sunscreen might lead to vitamin D deficiency. The idea is that sunscreen would block the UV light the skin needs to make vitamin D, critical for bone health.

However, you need far less UV than you think to make the vitamin D you need: only one-third of the UV that causes a sunburn, and less than you need to tan.

Tests on humans going about their daily business generally show no vitamin D differences between people who use sunscreen and those who don’t.

Myth #2. Its ingredients are toxic

If you google “toxic sunscreen”, you get more than eight million results. So people are clearly worried if it’s safe.

However, there’s little evidence of harm compared to the large benefits of sunscreens, which are highly regulated in Australia.

There is evidence large amounts of some sunscreen components can act as hormone disruptors. But the amounts needed far outstrip the amount sunscreen users are actually exposed to.

Some ingredients can act as hormone disruptors. But the amounts needed far outstrip the amount sunscreen users are actually exposed to.
from www.shutterstock.com

Some people have also been alarmed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announcing further testing of the sunscreen ingredients avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene and ecamsule. This was after a study showed their concentrations could reach over 0.5 nanograms/mL in the blood.

This experiment involved people thickly applying sunscreen to parts of the body not covered by a swimsuit, four times a day for four days in a row. In other words, this is the maximum amount you might apply on a beach holiday, and considerably more than you would wear on a day-to-day basis (unless you work in your budgie smugglers).

However, there’s no evidence these concentrations are harmful and the further testing is just a precaution.

The FDA recommends people continue using sunscreen. If you still feel uneasy, you can stick to zinc oxide and titanium dioxide sunscreens, which the FDA says are “generally recognised as safe and effective”.

How about nanoparticles?

That leads us to another common concern: nano-sized zinc oxide or titanium dioxide in sunscreens. Nanoparticle forms of these UV filters are designed to make them invisible on the skin while still keeping UV rays out.

Human studies show they either do not penetrate or minimally penetrate the stratum corneum. This is the upper-most layer of the skin, where the cells are already dead and tightly packed together to protect the living cells below. This suggests absorption and movement through the body, hence toxicity, is highly unlikely.

Myth #3. It’s pointless. I already have skin cancer in my family

Genetics and family history do play a role in many melanomas in Australia. For instance, mutations in genes such as CDKN2A substantially increase a person’s melanoma risk.

However, sun exposure increases melanoma risk on top of any existing genetic risk. So whatever your baseline risk, everyone can take steps to lower the additional risks that come with sun exposure.

Myth #4. I’m already middle-aged. It’s too late

It’s true that sunburns in childhood seem to have a disproportionate effect on the risk of melanomas and basal cell carcinomas. But squamous cell carcinomas are more affected by sun exposure over the years.

Ongoing sunscreen use also reduces the number new actinic keratoses, a pre-cancerous skin lesion, and reduces the number of existing keratoses in Australians over 40 years old.

Regular sunscreen use also puts the brakes on skin ageing, helping to reduce skin thinness, easy bruising and poor healing that older skin can be prone to. And of course, getting burnt feels terrible at any age.

Myth #4½. I’m allergic to sunscreen

This one’s only half a myth. Many people say they have an allergic reaction to sunscreen but only about 3% really do.

Often, people are just sunburned. They thought they were well-protected but simply stayed out in the sun too long, or didn’t reapply sunscreen often enough.

Your sunscreen might also be out of date. Sunscreen eventually breaks down and loses its effectiveness, faster if you store it somewhere very hot, like a car.

Alternatively, you may have polymorphic light eruption, a condition where UV light alters a skin compound, resulting in a rash. This can be itchy or burning, small pink or red bumps, flat, dry red patches, blisters, or even itchy patches with no visible signs.

Fortunately, this condition often occurs only on the first exposure during spring or early summer. Keep out of the sun for a few days and the rash should settle by itself.

If none of those causes fit the bill, you may indeed have an allergy to some component of your sunscreen (allergic contact dermatitis), which a dermatologist can confirm.

Katie Lee, Research assistant, The University of Queensland and Monika Janda, Professor in Behavioural Science, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It’s not only teenage girls, and it’s rarely attention-seeking: debunking the myths around self-injury

Posted on September 28, 2019 by particularkev

Self-injury is associated with underlying psychological distress, and increased suicide risk. But people who self-injure aren’t doing it to end their life.
Author provided

Penelope Hasking, Curtin University and Stephen P. Lewis, University of Guelph

Non-suicidal self-injury is the deliberate damage of body tissue without conscious suicidal intent. It’s more specific than self-harm, a broader term that can also include suicide attempts.

Self-injury is reasonably common, particularly among young people. In community samples, 17% of adolescents and 13% of young adults had engaged in self-injury.

Self-injury is associated with underlying psychological distress, and increased suicide risk. People who self-injure are typically doing so to cope with intense emotions.

Although we continue to understand more about self-injury, there remains significant public stigma towards people who self-injure.

This stigma can make people who self-injure reluctant to seek help or disclose their experiences to others. Research shows only half the people who are already seeing a therapist for mental health concerns will tell even their therapist about it.

One way to combat stigma, and support disclosure and help-seeking, is to debunk the common myths and misconceptions that surround self-injury.

Myth 1: only teenage girls self-injure

Self-injury is often thought of as a “teen fad”, and as especially prevalent among teenage girls. It’s true self-injury usually starts during adolescence, but people of all ages and genders self-injure. Recent research shows the second most common time to start self-injury is in a person’s early 20s.

Consistent with this, self-injury is common among university students; up to one in five report a history of self-injury, with about 8% self-injuring for the first time during university.

Although more women in treatment settings report self-injury, it’s likely that in community settings, self-injury is equally common among males and females. This may be because women are more likely than men to seek help.

Myth 2: people who self-injure are attention-seeking

One of the more pervasive myths about self-injury is that people self-injure to seek attention. Yet, self-injury is usually a very secretive behaviour, and people go to great lengths to hide their self-injury.

Instead, in the majority of research, people report the main reason they self-injure is to cope with intense or unwanted emotions.

Other common reasons people self-injure are to punish themselves or to stop an escalating cycle of painful thoughts and feelings. People may self-injure to communicate how distressed they are, particularly if they have trouble verbally expressing their feelings. In other words, their self-injury is a cry for help.

A recent study found influencing and punishing others was the least likely reason for self-injury.

Myth 3: people who self-injure are suicidal

By definition, non-suicidal self-injury is not motivated by a desire to end life. In addition to serving a different function, the frequency of suicidal and non-suicidal behaviours differs. That is, suicide attempts are generally infrequent, whereas non-suicidal behaviours can occur more often.

People who self-injure can benefit from support from friends, family, and health professionals.
From shutterstock.com

The methods used, the outcomes of the behaviours, and appropriate treatment responses also all differ. People at risk of suicide may require immediate and more intensive intervention; although both non-suicidal self-injury and suicidal behaviour need to be taken seriously and responded to compassionately.

For these reasons, it’s important to be clear when we are talking about self-injury and when we are talking about suicidal thoughts or behaviour.

Myth 4: there is a self-injury ‘epidemic’

While many people report at least one instance of self-injury, fewer people engage in repeated episodes.

Further, there is little evidence rates of self-injury have increased in recent years. Hospital records indicate an increase in presentations for “deliberate self-harm”, but these are predominantly poisonings, not self-injury.

Other studies show more people reporting self-injury, but it’s unclear whether this is because people are more comfortable disclosing their self-injury, or because self-injury is increasing.

Research suggests when the methodologies of the studies are taken into account, rates of self-injury have not increased over time.

Myth 5: social media contributes to self-injury

Internet and social media are highly relevant to many people who self-injure as they offer a means to obtain social support, share their experiences with others who have been through similar things, and obtain coping and recovery-oriented resources (for example, stories about other people’s experiences).

This is not surprising given the stigma attached to self-injury, which leaves many people who self-injure feeling isolated from others.

Despite these benefits, there are concerns online material, including graphic images and videos depicting self-injury, may trigger people to engage in self-injury. While only a few studies explicitly examine this, there is some evidence viewing graphic imagery is associated with self-injury. However, images of scars may not be as triggering.

There are also concerns exposure to messages that carry hopeless themes (for example, “it’s impossible to stop self-injuring”), may contribute to continued self-injury and impede help-seeking.

But at the same time, exposure to more positive messages may offer hope about recovery.

Fostering understanding

Self-injury is a common behaviour engaged in by a broad spectrum of people. Given its association with psychological difficulties and suicide risk, it’s critical self-injury be taken seriously and not dismissed or glossed over.

People who engage in self-injury need to know it’s okay to seek support (from friends, family, and health professionals) and that people can and do recover.

For anyone who knows someone who self-injures, it’s important to respond to that person in a non-judgemental and compassionate manner. Just knowing there is someone supportive who is willing to listen can make a big difference to a person who self-injures.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Penelope Hasking, Associate Professor of Psychology, Curtin University and Stephen P. Lewis, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Guelph

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Four myths about water fluoridation and why they’re wrong

Posted on July 12, 2017 by particularkev

File 20170712 3087 9hjdw5 — Adding fluoride to tap water to prevent tooth decay is one of our greatest public health achievements. Yet, myths persist about whether it’s safe and works.
from www.shutterstock.com

Matthew Hopcraft, University of Melbourne

Evidence gathered over 60 years about adding fluoride to drinking water has failed to convince some people this major public health initiative is not only safe but helps to prevent tooth decay.

Myths about fluoridated water persist. These include fluoride isn’t natural, adding it to our water supplies doesn’t prevent tooth decay and it causes conditions ranging from cancer to Down syndrome.

Now the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is in the process of updating its evidence on the impact of fluoridated water on human health since it last issued a statement on the topic in 2007.

Its draft findings and recommendations are clear cut:

NHMRC strongly recommends community water fluoridation as a safe, effective and ethical way to help reduce tooth decay across the population.

It came to its conclusion after analysing the evidence and issuing a technical report for those wanting more detail.

Here are four common myths the evidence says are wrong.

1. Fluoride isn’t natural

Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance found in rocks that leaches into groundwater; it’s also found in surface water. The natural level of fluoride in the water varies depending on the type of water (groundwater or surface) and the type of rocks and minerals it’s in contact with.

Fluoride is found in all natural water supplies at some concentration. Ocean water contains fluoride at around 1 part per million, about the same as levels of fluoridated drinking water in Australia.

There are many places in Australia where fluoride occurs naturally in the water supply at optimum levels to maintain good dental health. For example, both Portland and Port Fairy in Victoria have naturally occurring fluoride in their water at 0.7-1.0 parts per million.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The type of fluoride commonly found in many rocks and the source of the naturally occurring fluoride ion in water supplies is calcium fluoride.

The three main fluoride compounds generally used to fluoridate water are: sodium fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid (hexafluorosilicic acid) and sodium silicofluoride. All these fully mix (dissociate) in water, resulting in the availability of fluoride ions to prevent tooth decay.

So regardless of the original compound source, the end result is the same – fluoride ions in the water.

2. Fluoridated water doesn’t work

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Evidence for water fluoridation dates back to US studies in the 1940s, where dental researchers noticed lower levels of tooth decay in areas with naturally occurring fluoride in the water supply.

This prompted a study involving the artificial fluoridation of water supplies to a large community, and comparing the tooth decay rates to a neighbouring community with no fluoride.

The trial had to be discontinued after six years because the benefits to the children in the fluoridated community were so obvious it was deemed unethical to not provide the benefits to all the children, and so the control community water supply was also fluoridated.

Further reading: How fluoride in water helps prevent tooth decay

Since then, consistently we see lower levels of tooth decay associated with water fluoridation, and the most recent evidence, from Australia and overseas, supports this.

The NHMRC review found children and teenagers who had lived in areas with water fluoridation had 26-44% fewer teeth or surfaces affected by decay, and adults had 27% less tooth decay.

A number of factors are likely to influence the variation across populations and countries, including diet, access to dental care, and the amount of tap water people drink.

3. Fluoridated water causes cancer and other health problems

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The NHMRC found, there was reliable evidence to suggest water fluoridation at current levels in Australia of 0.6-1.1 parts per million is not associated with: cancer, Down syndrome, cognitive problems, lowered intelligence, hip fracture, chronic kidney disease, kidney stones, hardening of the arteries, high blood pressure, low birth weight, premature death from any cause, musculoskeletal pain, osteoporosis, skeletal fluorosis (extra bone fluoride), thyroid problems or other self-reported complaints.

Further reading: Why do some controversies persist despite the evidence?

This confirms previous statements from the NHMRC on the safety of water fluoridation, and statements from international bodies such as the World Health Organisation, the World Dental Federation, the Australian Dental Association and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Most studies that claim to show adverse health effects report on areas where there are high levels of fluoride occurring naturally in the water supply. This is often more than 2-10 parts per million or more, up to 10 times levels found in Australian water.

These studies are also often not of the highest quality, for example with small sample sizes and not taking into account other factors that may affect adverse health outcomes.

There is, however, evidence that fluoridated water is linked to both the amount and severity of dental fluorosis. This is caused by being exposed to excess fluoride (from any source) while the teeth are forming, affecting how the tooth enamel mineralises.

Most dental fluorosis in Australia is very mild or mild, and does not affect the either the function or appearance of the teeth. When you can see it, there are fine white flecks or lines on the teeth. Moderate dental fluorosis is very uncommon, and tends to include brown patches on the tooth surface. Severe dental fluorosis is rare in Australia.

4. Fluoridated water is not safe for infant formula

Some people are concerned about using fluoridated water to make up infant formula.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

However, all infant formula sold in Australia has very low levels of fluoride, below the threshold amount of 17 micrograms of fluoride/100 kilojules (before reconstitution), which would require a warning label.

Therefore, making up infant formula with fluoridated tap water at levels found in Australian (0.6-1.1 parts per million) is safe, and does not pose a risk for dental fluorosis. Indeed, Australian research shows there is no association between infant formula use and dental fluorosis.

A consistent message

Adding fluoride to tap water to prevent tooth decay is one of our greatest public health achievements, with evidence gathered over more than 60 years showing it works and is safe. This latest review, tailored to Australia, adds to that evidence.

Matthew Hopcraft, Clinical Associate Professor, Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Sharing my thoughts with the world from a Particular Baptist perspective

No, ADHD isn’t caused by too much TV

No, ADHD isn’t routinely overdiagnosed

How this stigma feels

Stigma can be a barrier to treatment

Share this:

Like this:

A leaderboard for COVID myths

Conspiracies can slip through the cracks

Taking down extremists isn’t the goal

Pressure on platforms is mounting

Share this:

Like this:

Myth 1: “You can’t get burnt in the shade”

Myth 2: “You’re safe from the sun when in water”

Myth 3: “Exercise makes my skin red hot, not the sun”

Myth 4: “That’s not sunburn, it’s windburn”

Myth 5: “You can’t get burnt in the car through a window”

Share this:

Like this:

What did we find?

Why is it important to reach this demographic?

How can we reach young people?

Some great examples

But we need more

Share this:

Like this:

Myth: COVID-19 is not much worse than the flu

Myth: Cases are increasing because testing is increasing

Myth: Lockdowns were unnecessary

Myth: The epidemiological models are always wrong

Myth: It’s a second wave

Share this:

Like this:

Getting the Message Out

Debunking myths

Stoking fear

Rallying cries

Share this:

Like this:

What doesn’t work

What can I do?

1. Understand how people perceive and react to risks

2. Recognise people’s concerns

3. Be aware of your own feelings

4. Ask why someone is worried

5. Remember, the facts are going to change

6. Admit when you’re wrong

7. Politely provide your own perspective

8. On social media, model the behaviour you want to see

9. Don’t make it worse online

Remember why this is important

Share this:

Like this:

Myth #1. It’s bad for my bones

Myth #2. Its ingredients are toxic

Myth #3. It’s pointless. I already have skin cancer in my family

Myth #4. I’m already middle-aged. It’s too late

Myth #4½. I’m allergic to sunscreen

Share this:

Like this:

Myth 1: only teenage girls self-injure

Myth 2: people who self-injure are attention-seeking

Myth 3: people who self-injure are suicidal

Myth 4: there is a self-injury ‘epidemic’

Myth 5: social media contributes to self-injury

Fostering understanding

Share this:

Like this:

1. Fluoride isn’t natural

2. Fluoridated water doesn’t work

3. Fluoridated water causes cancer and other health problems

4. Fluoridated water is not safe for infant formula

A consistent message

Share this:

Like this: