This is a qualitative study based on public comments on the Facebook and Twitter posts of the Finnish Institute of Health and Welfare (THL) from March 1, 2021 - May 31, 2021. THL is a public health institution in Finland that provides guidance and recommendations to the ministries in the national pandemic response. Likewise, THL is a pandemic related information source for the public. This period of time includes both the decline of the pandemic with the gradual easing of the public health measures as well the rise of the pandemic with the strengthening of the measures that accordingly gather a rich variety of risk-related perceptions.
The data was retrieved by using Emplifi, a social media management tool. All posts tagged with a “Corona” tag, indicating COVID-19 as the main theme of the post, were saved to an excel file for further inspection. The specific subject matter of the COVID-19 related posts ranged from weekly updates on the pandemic situation, to new related studies, to THL recommendations on topics such as mask use and remote working practices. The comments of an individual post were collected three days after its publication at the earliest. From March-May 2021, THL made 367 Facebook and 546 Twitter posts, of which 214 and 316 were corona-tagged respectively. According to statistics retrieved from Emplifi, about 80 percent of the THL Facebook audience are female, and 50 percent of the audience are 35-54-year-old women. Twitter users are women. Twitter comments frequently include trolling; online bullying by deliberately trying to offend, cause trouble or attack others on social media.
The data was then prepared for analysis through an anonymization process. The data was processed according to THL ethical guidelines including anonymization, which was carried out manually by deleting any personal names or specific locations, which referred directly to the comment authors. Locations indicating general areas (e.g., capital region, Southern Finland) as well as mentions of entire cities and countries were preserved. Likewise, personal names referring to people in the public eye (decision-makers, vocal health care experts in the pandemic context) were left intact when they appeared in the content of the comments. Any author information related to individual comments was erased. Comments in languages other than Finnish, and comments that were not related to the pandemic context (e.g., spam), as well as comments without verbal input (e.g., emojis, links without accompanying text), were discarded.
The final dataset consisted of 144 Facebook and 123 Twitter posts. The posts collected from Facebook had 9792 comments and 2612 unique authors, while the Twitter posts had 932 replies and 420 unique authors. THL’s replies to comments and questions varied among posts and platforms but were included in the data in order to preserve the context of the discussions in the comment section. Although the number of posts from both platforms is relatively equal, the tendency of a Facebook post to elicit interaction among followers was significantly higher. However, Emplify only allows for the collection of replies, not retweets on Twitter.
The data analysis was based on thematic analysis by two researchers using NVIVO to code and categorize the data and the MIRO board to synthesize and interpret the findings. The two researchers began the process by familiarizing themselves with the dataset as a whole by reading through the chains of comments followed by coding words, sentences, or paragraphs that reflected the scope or extent of the pandemic. They independently coded different data sets but coordinated regularly to review each other’s coding and determine the final set of codes in consensus. They individually identified categories, followed by a number of joint reviews, to determine the final set of themes that describe concepts that are linked to risk perception. See Supplementary material 1 for a code book.
Findings
The concepts associated with risk perception resulted in a taxonomy of eight themes that included five subjective factors: knowledge, perceptions, personal experience, trust, and attitudes, as well as two cultural factors that included respecting the rights of individuals and vertical culture, which were divided into 21 sub-themes, and further into categories. See Fig. 1.
Knowledge
Knowledge was defined as information about biomedical factors about the virus and the pandemic. Sub-categories linked with knowledge that were identified as subjects that influence risk perception included virus characteristics, the probability of death, and the scope of the pandemic. Virus characteristics that increased risk perception included the strength of the virus associated with severity of the symptoms, speed of the transmission, contact time, as well as modes of transmission associated with airborne transmission, in addition to changes in the virus associated with virus mutations, asymptomatic nature of the virus and unknown nature of the virus. The probability of death was conceptualized based on the numbers of people dying and the types of people dying. The risk was perceived as more severe when those who were dying were young people.
This is nothing but a normal spring only made to look like a pandemic through vast testing. Look at the real numbers! Only the number of deaths and hospitalizations matters, which is not bad at the moment.
Perceptions
Perception was defined as an interpretation, comprehension and understanding of risk related concepts. They included the nature of the virus and risk environment including the location of the virus transmission, transmitters of the virus, as well as efficacy of the prevention measures.
The perceptions of the virus as contagious or aggressive were recognized to increase risk perception. The risk of virus transmission was localized into environments that included small, narrow, crowded places, indoor places, and outside of Finland. The transmission was also localized into certain types of people who were perceived as the transmitters of the virus including careless people, such as people from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, those who were younger, people who do not follow prevention measures, as well as people with a social lifestyle that includes parties, events and travel. The transmitters of the virus also included people who could not avoid social contact due to their professions such as healthcare workers, people working in the service sector, as well as those who had an asymptomatic infection.
Smart people would postpone their graduation parties to the end of the summer. If we mess up the good progress the whole summer will be ruined.
Infection prevention measures such as social distancing or mask use were perceived as inefficient in the prevention of the pandemic and increased worry about the pandemic. These measures were seen as inefficient as the virus was considered stronger than the measures and virus transmission was therefore seen as inevitable. The prevention measures were also deemed inefficient because they were seen as illogical, such as restricting restaurant hours, or as something impossible to implement in everyday life such as distancing from other people while on public transport or shopping. Lastly, the measures were also perceived as ineffective based on real-life observation during which people who had taken measures contracted COVID-19, which heightened the risk perception. On the contrary, protecting one’s self and others from COVID-19 by adopting infection prevention measures reduced risk perception.
If the desert sand can fly all the way from Sahara to Finland, then why do some people think that a flimsy mask or a two-meter distance would stop viruses from spreading.
I will keep on going as usual, using facemasks, distancing, taking care of hand hygiene and limiting my activities to essential ones. I'll keep on acting like this as long as it is necessary.
Personal Experiences
Accounts of personal experiences with COVID-19 or experiences of friends or family that included pain, suffering, death, prolonged symptoms, financial problems, or social challenges increased risk perceptions, whereas personal accounts of COVID-19 with mild symptoms, symptoms comparable with seasonal flu, and duration reduced risk perception.
I've had corona and I know that even a mild case is not easy.
I know many people who've had corona, even risk group people, and they've all had a mild case.
Trust
Comments that were linked with a lack of trust towards political entities and media, society, and self, reflected heightened risk perceptions regarding the pandemic, whereas discussions that emphasized trust towards those entities reflected the opposite.
Discussions that reflected reduced trust towards political entities and media included comments on unreliable reporting or scandal-seeking reporting, arbitrary or rapidly changing infection prevention recommendations, and lack of action by the authorities to prevent the transmission of the virus in Finland. Discussions that reflected reduced trust towards other people (societal trust) manifested in comments that criticized others for not following the infection prevention measures. Mistrust in personal capabilities to self-protect against COVID-19 reflected in heightened risk perception of the pandemic, while trust in one’s ability to survive a possible infection decreased the perceived risk.
Policy makers are making decisions with votes in mind, at the expense of people's health.
If I had the choice I'd get myself corona straight away and be done with it. All people I know have had a mild case, my immune system could handle it.
Attitudes
Attitude was defined as a relatively stable feeling or way of thinking that affects a person's behavior. Attitudes that mirrored risk perceptions included belittling and acknowledgment of the pandemic as well as the importance of self-determination and fatalism. Belittling included statements about the risk of the pandemic as over exaggerated, such as coronavirus being nothing more than seasonal flu, which reflected reduced risk perceptions. Whereas statements about the pandemic as a serious and real threat, including acknowledgment of the pandemic as a real and serious problem with various health, social and financial implications, reflected heightening risk perceptions. Comments in which individuals highlighted concerns about a loss of self-determination in their life as a result of infection prevention and control restrictions mirrored increased risk perceptions towards the pandemic. Fatalism was evident from comments in which respondents emphasized pandemics as a natural order of the universe. Actions of an individual were not seen as having an effect in the course of the pandemic. The discussions aimed to normalize the pandemic and risk-related risk perception.
Corona is a bunch of hogwash. I've kept living my life as usual and seeing my friends. When restaurants open again I'm certainly going.
Some people see corona as a joke and downplay its severity. Everyone should read about the corona experiences of those infected with strange and long term symptoms.
Cultural Factors
Discussions also referred to broader socio-cultural factors including the rights of individuals to know, to be informed, or to have the freedom to take any actions as a principle that everyone was entitled to but that the pandemic was threatening to take away, which heightened risk perception towards the pandemic. In addition, comments reflecting the vertical culture, in which people focus on complying with authorities, express willingness to comply with the strict rule, and request more and stricter infection prevention measures, were perceived as reducing risk perceptions related to the pandemic.
It's true we should stay home while sick. Other than that, we have the right to live and be active without a mask [..].
People are frightened and stalk each other's actions. It's just unhealthy the way people are acting. I wish this madness and fuss would come to an end.