Is a deluge of misinformation driving a surge in coronavirus cases in Papua New Guinea?

CoronaCheck is RMIT ABC Fact Check’s weekly email newsletter dedicated to fighting the misinformation infodemic surrounding the coronavirus outbreak.

You can read the latest edition below, and subscribe to have the next newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.

CoronaCheck #58

As coronavirus cases in Papua New Guinea surge, so too does the volume of misinformation. This week, we’ve looked at what experts are saying about the variety of false claims and misleading information circulating in the country.

We’ve also checked Clive Palmer’s latest social media posts, and consider whether bonuses paid to NBN employees during the pandemic were within the company’s remit.

Misinformation fuels coronavirus surge in PNG

As a wave of coronavirus cases in PNG threatens to spill over into Australia, experts are sounding a warning about online misinformation in the Pacific nation.

In a media release issued last week, Amnesty International lambasted Australia and New Zealand for what the group’s Pacific researcher, Kate Schuetze, called a “woefully inadequate” response to the pandemic.

“Papua New Guinea’s health crisis has now reached the level we feared it would a year ago with a surge in cases,” Ms Schuetze said. “A combination of an ailing health system and inadequate living has created a perfect storm for COVID-19 to thrive in the country’s overcrowded informal settlements.”

She added that misinformation within the PNG community was “rife”, and that there had been suggestions that the pandemic was a “government conspiracy”.

“This has also been fuelled by the Government at times publishing inaccurate information on the number of confirmed cases. There is no effective public information campaign by the Government to dispel the misinformation.”

Meanwhile, the head of obstetrics and gynaecology at the School of Medicine and Health Sciences at the University of Papua New Guinea and Senior Gynecologist at Port Moresby General Hospital, took to Facebook to vent his frustration at “misinformation, wrong ideas and conspiracy theories” circulating in the Pacific nation.

“Sorry, getting a bit frustrated here with some of my compatriots,” Professor Glen Mola wrote.

“Health workers are risking their lives to continue to provide health services, and many people are just spending their time on screens accusing us of unethical practice, criminal and corrupt misuse of government funds and putting forward false, ridiculous, unfounded conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence.”

Among the debunked misinformation listed by Professor Mola were suggestions the pandemic was a hoax, that COVID-19 was no worse than a seasonal flu and that home remedies such as lemon tea would protect against the virus.

Australia’s High Commissioner to Papua New Guinea, Jon Philp, also weighed in during a radio interview with the ABC this week.

“There’s a lot of denial,” Mr Philp said in reference to the current outbreak. “There is a lot of bad information out on social media [saying] that COVID-19 doesn’t exist or that Papua New Guineans are generally immune for one reason or another. There are lots of conspiracy theories.”

Mr Philp said a major media and social media campaign was being funded in order to combat the onslaught of misinformation and to show that “there really is such a thing as COVID-19 and people are dying from it”.

He added, however, that conquering vaccine hesitancy would be a “big battle”.

According to misinformation researchers at First Draft, some Papuan New Guineans were questioning their government’s agenda in rolling out the COVID-19 vaccine, while others saw the Australian Government’s donation of 8,000 AstraZeneca jabs as a way of using the Pacific nation’s citizens as “lab rats”.

In response, PNG’s Prime Minister, James Marape, assured citizens he would be the first person to get the vaccine, with Justice Minister Bryan Kramer saying he would also be vaccinated in order to “dispel the false and misleading statements spread by a handful of people about the vaccine”.

Clive Palmer’s relentless vaccine misinformation campaign

Responsible for delivering bright yellow pamphlets to letterboxes around the country (the one pictured turned up last week in the letterbox of a Fact Check team member) billionaire businessman and former federal MP Clive Palmer seems determined to reach as many Australians as possible in his campaign against the use of COVID-19 vaccines.

As we covered in a recent edition of CoronaCheck, Mr Palmer incorrectly claimed on Facebook and in print advertisements that COVID-19 vaccines in Australia have only been approved for “emergency use”.

In fact, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has rigorously tested and “provisionally” approved the vaccines.

In recent public pronouncements, Mr Palmer has suggested that an Australian overdosing event is tied to the AstraZeneca vaccine controversy, in which a number of European countries had paused the rollout of the jab over (subsequently debunked) claims that it may cause blood clots.

“Countries including Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Latvia have so far suspended the use of the [AstraZeneca] COVID-19 vaccine over reported cases of potentially fatal blood clots in recipients,” Mr Palmer said on Facebook.

“Revelations that two Australians were hospitalised following the administration of the COVID vaccine were disturbing and it’s difficult to understand how there could be overdoses administered by registered practitioners.”

But that’s a misleading characterisation.

First, the two Australians Mr Palmer is referring to were given the wrong dose of the Pfizer vaccine, not the one made by AstraZeneca. More importantly, while the two elderly people were admitted to hospital following the incident, this was for observation purposes, and neither were reported to have suffered any adverse side effects.

Meanwhile, in a preliminary report, the European Medicines Agency said that the AstraZeneca vaccine was “not associated with an increase in the overall risk of blood clots (thromboembolic events) in those who receive it”.

“There is no evidence of a problem related to specific batches of the vaccine or to particular manufacturing sites,” the agency said.

It noted, however, that the vaccine may be associated with “very rare” cases of blood clotting in people with low levels of blood platelets, including cases of clots in blood draining from the brain (known as CVST).

“A causal link with the vaccine is not proven, but is possible and deserves further analysis.”

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation agreed with the European Medicines Agency that the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risks.

“ATAGI considers the benefits of vaccination in protecting people in Australia from COVID-19 outweigh the rare potential risk of these rare blood clotting events, and supports the continued rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Australia,” the group said in a statement.

A heartfelt thank you to our subscribers

In late 2020, Fact Check issued a call out via this newsletter for participants to take part in a survey being conducted by researchers at RMIT University. We received an overwhelming response, with more than 1,500 people completing the survey questionnaire, and we offer our sincerest thanks to the many subscribers who chose to get involved.

For everyone who expressed interest in participating in a follow-up study, please stand-by — you will be hearing from us again soon!

The results of the survey are being used to inform a study by RMIT ABC Fact Check’s newly established multidisciplinary research collective that includes experts in the fields of information retrieval and psychology, and which aims to investigate misinformation online and develop tools to counter it.

The survey covered a range of subjects including participants’ willingness to share unverified content on social media, as well as their attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine.

It sought to identify any correlations that may exist between particpant’s responses and their stated belief in science or susceptibility to conspiracy theories.

Some of the preliminary findings were quite surprising: for a generally well-educated and media literate cohort, a small number of our survey participants declared that they had previously shared unverified social media content and may do so again.

According to the researchers, the key take-away from the survey was that no-one is fully immune to misinformation.

From Washington, D.C.

As the US works to cope with an influx of migrants at its southern border, Republicans including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy have claimed that some of those attempting to enter are “known or suspected terrorists” from countries such as Yemen, Iran, Sri Lanka and China.

According to the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, such claims are difficult to verify, given a lack of transparency from US officials.

While some of the Republican claimants say they were told by Border Patrol agents that four people on terror watchlists had arrived at the border since October, immigration officials would neither confirm nor deny that figure, telling the Post only that such instances were “very uncommon”.

Delving back into the archives, the Post found that conflicting media sources in 2018 cited either six or 12 encounters with known or suspected terrorists at the US-Mexico border.

“These are very limited disclosures, with only partial details filtering into news reports, some of them conflicting, about an issue with potentially grave implications,” the fact checkers said.

“US officials keep this information closely under wraps. We’ve yet to see a breakdown, for instance, of how many of these individuals in any year were known terrorists, as opposed to suspected terrorists (a designation that casts a much wider net).”

Returning to the present, the Post further concluded Mr McCarthy was incorrect to say that the unknown number of people on terror lists found at the border recently had come from Iran, Sri Lanka or China.

“He also mentioned Yemen, which appears to be correct.”

In other news: Could the Government have intervened when the NBN paid out hefty bonuses during the pandemic?

Recent reports that NBN Co paid $77.5 million in bonuses over five months during the pandemic-stricken second half of 2020 — about $34 million more than the entire 2018-19 financial year — didn’t quite sit right with many Australians.

Asked by ABC Radio National host Fran Kelly how the bonuses could be justified during the worst recession for almost a century, Communications Minister Paul Fletcher said the NBN played a critical role during the crisis, with daily traffic up 70 per cent as millions moved to work and study at home.

Mr Fletcher added that the bonuses were a decision for the NBN board, and were a consequence of the NBN being set up by the former Labor government as a Government Business Enterprise.

This week, Fact Check investigated whether the NBN was free to independently award bonuses under the rules covering government-owned businesses, and found Mr Fletcher’s claim to be a fair call.

The ability of the boards of Government Business Enterprises to award performance bonuses dates back to the 1980s with the introduction of reforms aimed at bolstering flexibility and profitability.

These publicly owned companies operate as commercially focused entities, with considerable independence, including the ability to create incentives and to reward staff.

In the case of NBN Co, so-called “short-term incentives” for senior staff are set by a special remuneration committee and approved by the NBN board, based on performance.

However, this does not mean that the Government is powerless when it comes to executive remuneration.

Boards of Government Business Enterprises are still ultimately accountable to “shareholder ministers”, who represent the interests of the Government.

These ministers are required to take a strong interest in the performance and financial returns of the business, and have the power to set the strategic direction.

It is well within the scope of the Government’s powers, as the sole shareholder, to make it clear to the board members they appoint that executive remuneration levels are unacceptable, out of step with public expectations, or causing reputational damage.

Edited by Ellen McCutchan

Got a fact that needs checking? Tweet us @ABCFactCheck or send us an email at factcheck@rmit.edu.au

*** This article has been archived for your research. The original version from ABC News can be found here ***