Why Lockdowns Don't Necessarily Infringe On Freedom

Why Lockdowns Don't Necessarily Infringe On Freedom (Image by Tumisu)

Europe is dealing with its “second wave” of COVID-19. And governments seem powerless to stem the tide. Dutch political leaders find it difficult to convince their citizens to wear face masks. A large majority of French voters think that Emmanuel Macron’s government has handled the pandemic badly. And Boris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister, is facing anger from all sides about the circumstances that led to a new English lockdown.

According to these leaders, the arrival of a second wave has nothing to do with their own policy failures, or poor communication. No, the numbers are rising because Europeans are freedom-loving people and it’s hard to make them follow rules. “It is very difficult to ask the British population, uniformly, to obey guidelines in the way that is necessary,” said Johnson for example, in response to criticism of his government’s testing policy. Similarly, in the Netherlands some were quick to attribute soaring infection rates to the fact that the Dutch are famously averse to being “patronised”.

The same explanation is often invoked to account for why Europe is doing significantly worse than countries in East Asia, where the disease seems more under control. According to some commentators, the authoritarian, top-down political culture of countries like China and Singapore makes it far easier to implement strict measures than in liberal Europe.

Singapore’s “effective crisis management”, for instance, was supposedly made possible by the fact that its government “has always wielded absolute control over the state, with an iron fist and a whip in it.” Conversely, many believe that a devotion to “individual liberty” doomed the west to its ongoing crisis.

A coronavirus screening centre in Singapore. (EPA-EFE)

Is this true? Is a poorly functioning government indeed the price that must be paid for freedom? If that is the case, then perhaps we had better give up on liberty. After all, anyone who is dead or seriously ill does not benefit much from being free.

Collective freedom

Fortunately, that’s a conclusion we needn’t draw. As history shows, freedom is quite compatible with effective government. Western political thinkers ranging from Herodotus to Algernon Sidney did not think that a free society is a society without rules, but that those rules should be decided collectively. In their view, freedom was a public good rather than a purely individual condition. A free people, Sidney wrote for instance, was a people living “under laws of their own making”.

Even philosophers such as John Locke, it is worth noting, agreed with this view. Locke is often portrayed as a thinker who believed that freedom coincided with individual rights, rights that should be protected at all costs against state interference. But Locke explicitly denied that freedom was harmed by government regulation – as long as those rules were made “with the consent of society”.

“Freedom then is not … a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any law,” he wrote in his famous Second Treatise. “But freedom of men under government, is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it.”

It was only in the early 19th century that some began to reject this collective ideal in favour of a more individualistic conception of liberty.

A new liberty

In the wake of the French Revolution, democracy slowly expanded across Europe. But this was not universally welcomed. The extension of the right to vote, many feared, would give political power to the poor and uneducated, who would no doubt use it to make dumb decisions or to redistribute wealth. 

Storming of The Bastile, Jean-Pierre Houël, 1789. (Wikimedia Commons)

Hence, liberal elites embarked on a campaign against democracy – and they did so in the name of freedom. Democracy, liberal thinkers ranging from Benjamin Constant to Herbert Spencer argued, was not the mainstay of liberty but a potential threat to freedom properly understood – the private enjoyment of one’s life and goods.

Throughout the 19th century, this liberal, individualistic conception of freedom continued to be contested by radical democrats and socialists alike. Suffragettes such as Emmeline Pankhurst profoundly disagreed with Spencer’s view that the best way to protect liberty was to limit the sphere of government as much as possible. At the same time, socialist politicians such as Jean Jaurès claimed that they, and not the liberals, were the party of freedom, since socialism’s goal was “to organise the sovereignty of all in both the economic and political spheres”.

The ‘free’ West

Only after 1945 did the liberal concept of freedom prevail over the older, collective conception of freedom. In the context of cold war rivalry between the “free West” and the Soviet Union, distrust of state power grew - even democratic state power. In 1958, liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin, in a one-sided reading of the history of European political thought, stated that “Western” freedom was a purely “negative” concept. Every law, Berlin stated bluntly, had to be seen as an encroachment on freedom.

The cold war is of course since long over. Now that we are entering the third decade of the 21st century, we might want to dust off the older, collective concept of freedom. If the coronavirus crisis has made one thing clear, it is that collective threats such as a pandemic demand decisive, effective action from government.

This does not mean giving up our freedom in exchange for the protection of a nanny state. As Sidney and Locke remind us, as long as even the strictest lockdown can count on broad democratic support, and the rules remain subject to scrutiny by our representatives and the press, they do not infringe on our freedom.

About Today's Contributor:

Annelien de Dijn, Professor of History, Utrecht University

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

A New Data-Driven Model Shows That Wearing Masks Saves Lives – And The Earlier You Start, The Better [Video Included]

A New Data-Driven Model Shows That Wearing Masks Saves Lives – And The Earlier You Start, The Better (screengrab)

Dr. Biplav Srivastava, professor of computer science at the University of South Carolina, and his team have developed a data-driven tool that helps demonstrate the effect of wearing masks on COVID-19 cases and deaths. His model utilizes a variety of data sources to create alternate scenarios that can tell us “What could have happened?” if a county in the U.S. had a higher or lower rate of mask adherence. In this interview, he explains how the model works, its limitations and what conclusions we can draw from it.

What does this computer model do?

This is a nationwide tool which can show the effect that wearing masks can have. If it’s a county where people wear masks regularly, it will show you how many COVID-19 cases and deaths they avoided. If you pick a county where people don’t wear masks, it will show you how many cases and deaths could have been prevented there.

How does it do it?

We need a lot of data to do this. The New York Times surveyed almost every county in the U.S. over the summer and assigned a mask-wearing score of 0-5 to each of them, so this is at the heart of the model. We also use New York Times and Johns Hopkins data for real-time case numbers; census data for demographics such as population size, median age and more; and geographic data to measure the distance between counties.

It is based on a mathematical technique called robust synthetic control, which is often used in drug research, where there is a control group and there is a treatment group.

For example, let’s look at Wyandotte County, Kansas. It has a relatively high mask-wearing score of about 3.4. Because the model is designed to tell us the “what if?” scenario, it will look at what would have happened if the mask-wearing score was reduced to 3.0, which is our cutoff for “low mask-wearing,” but the user can experiment with other values too just to see what happens. We arrived at 3.0 based on analysis of nationwide mask-wearing habits. The actual values ranged between 1.4 and 3.85, with a national average of 2.98.

We can set a date at which the mask-wearing score changes to 3.0. If we set it to run from June 1 to Oct 1, it tells us that Wyandotte County would have had 101.5% more cases and 150 more deaths in that period. It tells the user how many deaths have occurred or been prevented based on a mortality rate parameter that the user can set. In this example, it was set at 2%.

How does the model create the “what if?” scenario if it didn’t actually happen? It does this by looking at other counties that are close by and have similar demographics and case count but a lower mask-wearing threshold. It tries to come up with a weighted average to form a synthetic control group which is similar to our county of interest (treatment group). The model then looks at how much the two groups have diverged in terms of the case counts. The difference in case counts between the two groups is converted to a difference in deaths using the mortality rate parameter.

Computer scientist Biplav Srivastava provides a demo of the simulation to show that earlier policies to recommend mask-wearing make a bigger difference on the spread of the coronavirus.(screengrab)

What does this tell us about the impact of mask-wearing policies?

Keeping up mask-wearing or implementing a mask policy at any time can be helpful. But its impact is highest when you do it early. When you run this model multiple times using different dates, you see that the impact reduces as you delay implementing a mask-wearing policy. So if a county implemented a mask policy on June 1, it would have prevented many cases. If it acted on July 1, it would have a smaller impact. If it acted in August, it would still have prevented cases, but a very small number.

What are the limitations of this model?

This tool works better for some counties than others. In general, it works best with counties that are closer to the average, because it will have closer matches to compare against. There is also a limitation in the sense that The New York Times mask adherence survey was done in the summer, and things keep changing. So if other researchers use this tool, they will have to account for the changes.

But what you see is that when you implement a mask policy or the population regularly wears masks, it makes a positive impact. And the earlier you do it, the more effective it is.

I would like to acknowledge the work of my team, Sparsh Johri, Kartikaya Srivastava, Chinmayi Appajigowda and Lokesh Johri, in developing this program.

The Video:

About Today's Contributor:

Biplav Srivastava, Professor of Computer Science, University of South Carolina

The computer model simulates how many COVID-19 cases could have been prevented in a particular county in the U.S. (Leontura/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images)

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

The Knight Bros. Slay COVID-19 [Video Included]

Wee Beasties - Written and Illustrated by Dr. David Knight, Music by Bradford Knight (The Knight Bros.) - a handwashing book and song for kids

Amid ongoing pressure from COVID-19 to keep kids and communities healthy, The Knight Bros. have created an illustrated children's book and song called Wee Beasties, that uses humor, art and rhyming verse to encourage good handwashing habits for early learners age 2 – 8, releasing November 16, 2020.

Wee Beasties is the first in a series of new illustrated books and songs by two brothers. Author and illustrator, Dr. David Knight, is a professor from Colorado State University who was en route to help lead an international program in Wuhan, China when the coronavirus effectively changed the world and put everyone on lockdown. His brother, Bradford Knight, is a singer-songwriter-musician living in southern California. 

• In an unexpected twist of fate, the brothers found themselves quarantined together for five-months, giving rise to a steady stream of creativity and the launch of The Knight Bros. Their works now include more than two dozen titles.

The Knight Bros. (image via theknightbros.com)

Commenting on Wee Beasties, Colleen Fracisco, a veteran nurse of 25 years' experience, said, "This book and song are great tools for parents and teachers to make handwashing meaningful for children. The book takes a hilarious look at germs and how they need to be washed away. It will help build quality hand hygiene skills that will last!" 

Preschool teacher, Kelly Gross, who has two decades of teaching experience at Los Angeles Unified School District, said, "Wee Beasties is an adorable picture book bound to inspire my preschoolers to wash their hands. The author's peppy and engaging rhyming text, combined with the bright and vibrant illustrations, and a creative song, lead to a fun reading and singing experience."

The Video:

Five more titles from The Knight Bros. collection will be released November 23 and December 12, building on safe, clean themes that both entertain and educate. 

• BONNIE McBOWER is about a girl who has an insatiable showering experience 
• BRUSHING brings attention to oral hygiene 
• SMELLY FEET focuses on cleaning relentlessly stinky feet
• BALLOON and ROLLER COASTER promote safety

Imparting important life lessons in a humorous way is the common thread woven through The Knight Bros. stories. While the primary audience is younger, the big kid in many of us will also enjoy it. 

SOURCE: The Knight Bros.

Related Stories:

• Hip Hop Public Health Completes Trilogy Of COVID-19 Music Video PSAs With Release Of #BehindTheMask [Video & Lyrics Included]
• Korean Pop Music Video "Be The Future" Released to Media and Schools to Urge Youth to Stay Safe During COVID-19 [Video Included]
• Hip Hop Public Health Launches 20 Seconds or More Initiative Harnessing the Power of Music to Encourage Hand Washing and Other Safety Protocols Amongst Young People to Battle the COVID-19 Pandemic
• "Corona Wuhan Na" - New Coronavirus Comedy Song But With A Serious Message [Video And Lyrics Included]

90% Efficacy for Pfizer's COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine is Striking. But We Need to Wait for The Full Data

 90% Efficacy for Pfizer's COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine is Striking. But We Need to Wait for The Full Data (University of Maryland School of Medicine/AP/AAP)

German biotech company BioNTech and US pharmaceutical Pfizer announced on Monday promising early results from their phase 3 clinical trial for a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

These early results are what is known as an “interim analysis”. It’s an early look at the data before a study is complete, to understand if there is any indication of whether the vaccine might work.

Currently, this trial has enrolled 43,538 volunteers, giving half the volunteers two doses of the vaccine and the other half two doses of a placebo. These volunteers then continued their normal lives, but they were monitored for any symptoms that could be COVID-19, with testing to confirm.

Analysis of 94 volunteers with confirmed COVID-19 suggests the vaccine has an efficacy of over 90%.

This means that if you took ten people who were going to get sick from COVID-19 and vaccinated them, only one out of ten would now get sick.

Can we get excited yet?

There is more data to come. This is a press release and the data have not undergone “peer-review” through scientific publication, although it has been assessed by an independent monitoring board. The study also won’t be complete until 164 volunteers have confirmed COVID-19, and the estimate of efficacy may therefore change. Finally, the volunteers must be monitored for a defined period of time after vaccination for any side effects and this must be completed.

Important questions also remain. It’s unclear how long protection will last, as this study has only been underway for three months. It’s unclear if this vaccine protects against severe disease or if this vaccine will work equally well in everyone. For example, a phase 1 clinical trial with this vaccine showed that immune responses were lower in older people.

90% efficacy would be far higher than the FDA’s threshold of 50%, and greater than that of many flu vaccines, which tend to provide around 60%. (Virginia Mayo/AP/AAP)

But 90% efficacy is striking. To give some context, the US Food and Drug Administration indicated they would licence a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine with 50% efficacy. The flu vaccine often provides around 60% efficacy and the mumps vaccine, which is currently the fastest vaccine ever made at four years, provides around 88% efficacy.

The BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine could outstrip that, after just nine months of development. This level of efficacy means virus transmission could be very effectively controlled.

That has the research community excited. It bodes well for other vaccines currently being tested for SARS-CoV-2 and we could end up with multiple successful vaccines. This would be great because some might work better in certain populations, like older people.

Multiple vaccines could also be manufactured using a broad range of established infrastructure, which would accelerate vaccine distribution.

Producing mRNA on a commercial scale

The BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine is what’s called an mRNA vaccine.

As this article by Associate Professor Archa Fox, an expert on molecular cell biology from the University of Western Australia, explains:

mRNA vaccines are coated molecules of mRNA, similar to DNA, that carry the instructions for making a viral protein.

After injection into muscle, the mRNA is taken up by cells. Ribosomes, the cell’s protein factories, read the mRNA instructions and make the viral protein. These new proteins are exported from cells and the rest of the immunisation process is identical to other vaccines: our immune system mounts a response by recognising the proteins as foreign and developing antibodies against them.

A problem for Australia is that it can’t make mRNA vaccines onshore yet.

The Australian government has an agreement for ten million doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine. Since this vaccine requires two doses, this agreement is sufficient for five million Australians. It’s unclear how long it will take until any vaccine is widely available, but we may hear more about this in the coming weeks and months.

The vaccine requires storage at a temperature below -60℃. This will certainly be a challenge for shipping to Australia and local distribution, although not impossible. One solution to this problem is to form vaccination centres to roll out the vaccine once it becomes available. In a briefing by Pfizer, the company said it will use ultra-low temperature shipment strategies and the vaccine can then be distributed on “dry-ice”.

Currently, Australia has no capacity to produce mRNA on a commercial scale given the technology’s novelty. But we (the authors) and others have been working to coordinate and build the manufacturing capacity in Australia for future mRNA vaccine and therapeutics. With financial support aimed at private-public mRNA manufacturing collaboration, Australia can equip itself with this vital technological asset.

About Today's Contributors:

Harry Al-Wassiti, Bioengineer and Research Fellow, Monash University; Colin Pouton, Professor of Pharmaceutical Biology, Monash University, and Kylie Quinn, Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellow, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University

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

How Coronavirus Has Hit the Movie Industry

How Coronavirus Has Hit the Movie Industry (Photo by Nathan Engel)

Since early 2020, the world has been gripped by the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. Despite drastic measures designed to curb the spread of the virus, it continues to wreak havoc in virtually every country around the world.

While the health implications of COVID-19 have been the most pressing factor, there’s no doubt that the economic impact of the virus is continuing to affect industries. Virtually every sector has been affected by COVID-19, but some have been hit harder than others.

The entertainment industry, as a whole, has been forced to suspend numerous productions and delay movie releases due to the on-going COVID-19 restrictions. While the demand for at-home entertainment continues to soar, the movie industry has been unable to operate for the majority of 2020.

Why Aren’t Movies Being Released?

Popular firms are always eagerly anticipated by fans, with many people booking tickets to see the film months in advance. Major franchises are always winners for movie companies, which is why people are continually asking, how successful will the new Bond film be? However, movie fans have been disappointed this year, as release dates continue to be pushed back.

When major titles are released, they typically make hundreds of millions of dollars for production companies. Additionally, directors, actors, and producers can garner accolades and awards upon the release of a big picture.

If production companies choose to release major titles now, they stand to make a significantly reduced profit. While some movie theaters remain closed and unable to show the film, others are operating with limited capacity. This means far fewer people can access a viewing, which equates to lower box office figures.

In addition to this, many people are understandably worried about attending public venues, like movie theaters and comedy clubs. Even when these venues are open, the on-going concern about transmitting or contracting the virus is causing people to stay at home, rather than attend.

How Coronavirus Has Hit the Movie Industry (Photo by Tuur Tisseghem)

What Does the Future of the Industry Look Like?

Sadly, the arts industry has been severely affected by COVID-19. Many people who work behind the scenes in movies, television, or theater work on a self-employed basis. This means they’ve been unable to generate an income while productions have been halted and live performances stopped.

While larger companies have been able to weather the financial storm caused by coronavirus, smaller production firms and movie companies may be unable to continue operating for much longer. For fans, this may mean fewer independent or niche films are released in the upcoming years.

Furthermore, the demand for at-home entertainment is fueling the streaming industry. With major streaming services already producing their own original series and films, it’s possible that major movie titles will be released directly via streaming, rather than hitting the movie theaters.

When it comes to major titles and famous franchises, however, fans shouldn’t have too much to worry about. While releases may be delayed for some time yet, there’s no doubt that production large companies will bounce back from the crisis and continue to deliver award-winning pictures.

A Guide to Going to the Gym During Covid-19

A Guide to Going to the Gym During Covid-19 (Photo by William Choquette from Pexels)

We get it, exercising at home can be tough. It’s hard to find motivation at home and when you do, you often have to modify your practice because of space or noise restrictions. Thankfully, after months of gyms being closed, many are finally starting to re-open with limited capacity. While measures are likely in place at your gym to keep people safe, you should also think carefully about what you can do personally to eliminate as much risk as possible. Grab a pair of men’s or women’s supportive sneakers and follow the checklist below to ensure maximum safety for you and those around you at the gym.

Consider Your Risk Level:

According to the CDC, those most at risk of developing severe symptoms of Covid-19 are people who are 65 years old and older and anyone with health conditions. If you fall into either of these groups, it is recommended that you avoid going to gyms while Covid-19 is still at large. While gyms should take precautions like cleaning equipment frequently and taking everyone’s temperature upon arrival, there is still a chance that you could contract the virus.

Avoid Big Group Classes:

Instead of jumping back into crowded classes at the gym, opt for solo practices or classes of small groups with less movement. For example, you should avoid a jam-packed hot yoga class in favor of a small, eight person or less Yin yoga class. Swap an organized cycling class for an hour of solo cycling indoors or biking outdoors.

A Guide to Going to the Gym During Covid-19 (Photo by Tim Mossholder from Pexels)

Abide by the Six Foot Rule:

If your gym is following CDC guidelines, they should have separated equipment and blocked off machines so that people exercising are always at least six feet away from each other. Make sure you follow this six foot guideline anytime you are in a public place, especially while at the gym.

Wear a Mask When Possible:

Many gyms aren’t requiring a mask while you are exercising, as it makes it more difficult to breathe. However, at least when you are coming and going at the gym or doing a low intensity exercise, you should wear a mask. 

A Guide to Going to the Gym During Covid-19 (Photo by Tirachard Kumtanom from Pexels)

Consider Exercising Outdoors:

There is an alternative to working out in your home that doesn’t involve going to the gym. Slip on a pair of women’s or men’s supportive sneakers and head outdoors for your exercise; whether to run, bike, or do a circuit routine. Even going for a vigorous walk or swim can break up the monotony of working indoors all day long and keep you feeling active and healthy. The bonus is that you can also soak up the sun and get a dose of Vitamin D, which helps ward off viruses by keeping your immune system strong.

Related Stories:

• Shh! At-Home Workout Tips To Not Disturb the Neighbors
• 3 Celeb Workout Plans Which Will Motivate You Today
• Do Not Disturb: How to Exercise Quietly at Home
• UK: 5 Types Of Exercise To Do In Manchester [Infographic]

Misinformation: Tech Companies Are Removing 'Harmful' Coronavirus Content – But Who Decides What That Means?

Misinformation: Tech Companies Are Removing 'Harmful' Coronavirus Content – But Who Decides What That Means? (Pearl PhotoPix/Shutterstock)

The “infodemic” of misinformation about coronavirus has made it difficult to distinguish accurate information from false and misleading advice. The major technology companies have responded to this challenge by taking the unprecedented move of working together to combat misinformation about COVID-19.

Part of this initiative involves promoting content from government healthcare agencies and other authoritative sources, and introducing measures to identify and remove content that could cause harm. For example, Twitter has broadened its definition of harm to address content that contradicts guidance from authoritative sources of public health information.

Facebook has hired extra fact-checking services to remove misinformation that could lead to imminent physical harm. YouTube has published a COVID-19 Medical Misinformation Policy that disallows “content about COVID-19 that poses a serious risk of egregious harm”.

The problem with this approach is that there is no common understanding of what constitutes harm. The different ways these companies define harm can produce very different results, which undermines public trust in the capacity for tech firms to moderate health information. As we argue in a recent research paper, to address this problem these companies need to be more consistent in how they define harm and more transparent in how they respond to it.

Science is subject to change

A key problem with evaluating health misinformation during the pandemic has been the novelty of the virus. There’s still much we don’t know about COVID-19, and much of what we think we know is likely to change based on emerging findings and new discoveries. This has a direct impact on what content is considered harmful.

The pressure for scientists to produce and share their findings during the pandemic can also undermine the quality of scientific research. Pre-print servers allow scientists to rapidly publish research before it is reviewed. High-quality randomised controlled trials take time. Several articles in peer-reviewed journals have been retracted due to unreliable data sources.

Even the World Health Organization (WHO) has changed its position on the transmission and prevention of the disease. For example, it didn’t begin recommending that healthy people wear face masks in public until June 5, “based on new scientific findings”.

The World Health Organization has updated its advice as new evidence has emerged. (FABRICE COFFRINI/EPA)

Yet the major social media companies have pledged to remove claims that contradict guidance from the WHO. As a result, they could remove content that later turns out to be accurate.

This highlights the limits of basing harm policies on a single authoritative source. Change is intrinsic to the scientific method. Even authoritative advice is subject to debate, modification and revision.

Harm is political

Assessing harm in this way also fails to account for inconsistencies in public health messaging in different countries. For example, Sweden and New Zealand’s initial responses to COVID-19 were diametrically opposed, the former based on “herd immunity” and the latter aiming to eliminate the virus. Yet both were based on authoritative, scientific advice. Even within countries, public health policies differ at the state and national level and there is disagreement between scientific experts.

Exactly what is considered harmful can become politicised, as debates over the use of malaria drug hydroxychloroquine and ibuprofen as potential treatments for COVID-19 exemplify. What’s more, there are some questions that science cannot solely answer. For example, whether to prioritise public health or the economy. These are ethical considerations that remain highly contested.

Moderating online content inevitably involves arbitrating between competing interests and values. To respond to the speed and scale of user-generated content, social media moderation mostly relies on computer algorithms. Users are also able to flag or report potentially harmful content.

Despite being designed to reduce harm, these systems can be gamed by savvy users to generate publicity and distrust. This is particularly the case with disinformation campaigns, which seek to provoke fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Users can take advantage of the nuanced language around disease prevention and treatments. For example, personal anecdotes about “immune-boosting” diets and supplements can be misleading but difficult to verify. As a result, these claims don’t always fall under the definition of harm.

Similarly, the use of humour and taking content out of context (“the weaponisation of context”) are strategies commonly used to bypass content moderation. Internet memes, images and questions have also played a crucial role in generating distrust of mainstream science and politics during the pandemic and helped fuel conspiracy theories.

Transparency and trust

The vagueness and inconsistency of technology companies’ content moderation mean that some content and user accounts are demoted or removed while other arguably harmful content remains online. The “transparency reports” published by Twitter and Facebook only contain general statistics about country requests for content removal and little detail of what is removed and why.

This lack of transparency means these companies can’t be adequately held to account for the problems with their attempts to tackle misinformation, and the situation is unlikely to improve. For this reason, we believe tech companies should be required to publish details of their moderation algorithms and a record of the health misinformation removed. This would increase accountability and enable public debate where content or accounts appear to have been removed unfairly.

In addition, these companies should highlight claims that might not be overtly harmful but are potentially misleading or at odds with official advice. This kind of labelling would provide users with credible information with which to interpret these claims without suppressing debate.

Through greater consistency and transparency in their moderation, technology companies will provide more reliable content and increase public trust – something that has never been more important.

About Today's Contributors:

Stephanie Alice Baker, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, City, University of London; Matthew Wade, Lecturer in Social Inquiry, La Trobe University, and Michael James Walsh, Associate Professor, University of Canberra

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

Hip Hop Public Health Completes Trilogy Of COVID-19 Music Video PSAs With Release Of #BehindTheMask [Video & Lyrics Included]

Hip Hop Public Health (HHPH) Completes Trilogy Of COVID-19 Music Video PSAs With Release Of Behind The Mask (PRNewsfoto/Hip Hop Public Health)

Building upon the momentum and public engagement generated by 20 Seconds or More and 20 Segundos o Más, the high-impact music video PSAs that have become global anthems and rallying cries around the importance of handwashing in the fight against COVID-19 since launching in April and July, respectively, Hip Hop Public Health (HHPH) today released Behind the Mask. 

Behind the Mask is an original new song and music video designed to increase the use of face masks as an effective means of stopping the spread of the coronavirus around the world. It is the third installment in a trilogy of COVID-related music video PSAs produced by Hip Hop Public Health, the New York-based, nonprofit organization founded in 2006 to build health equity through the transformative power of music, art and science. 

With the number of coronavirus cases continuing to rise around the country while disproportionately affecting communities of color, the goal of Behind the Mask is to proactively address the issue by driving the conversation and debate around COVID-19 safety protocols into action with culturally relevant and compassionate messaging.

Behind the Mask was written by multi-platinum composer Quennel Worthy, and features Grammy-nominated vocalist Raheem DeVaughn, backed by Grammy-winning rapper Darryl DMC McDaniels from Run-DMC and the iconic rapper and HHPH Co-Founder, Doug E. Fresh. With medical oversight by Dr. Olajide Williams, Co-Founder of Hip Hop Public Health and Chief of Staff, Department of Neurology, New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, Behind the Mask utilizes HHPH's evidence-based behavior change Multisensory Multilevel Health Education Model . 

• The video focuses on proper mask-wearing techniques while incorporating culturally tailored, personalized themes that drive a strong emotional connection to the message, which in turn has been shown to facilitate behavior change.

"There is unequivocal supporting evidence that masks reduce the spread of COVID-19, and this is related to the scientific consensus that the infection can occur from inhaling droplets containing the virus," says Dr. Olajide Williams. "Masks act as a barrier to these infected droplets of saliva that are expelled when we sneeze, cough, or even breathe heavily. They protect those around us from being infected by us, and this is especially important because of the people in our communities walking among us who do not exhibit symptoms (asymptomatic people). The more people that wear masks, the more we are able to reduce the spread of COVID-19 - and to demonstrate this point, one study from the University of Washington showed that if 95% of the public wear masks, we would avoid approximately 34,000 more deaths by October 1, 2020."

Hip Hop Public Health created Behind the Mask as the cornerstone of a major public health education initiative that began in April at the height of the pandemic in New York with 20 Seconds or More, followed by the Latino community-facing 20 Segundos o Más campaign in early July. 

• Together, these campaigns have reached over three million people around the world through the viewing and sharing of the videos, significant social media traction and international media coverage.

A running theme encapsulated in the Behind the Mask song is love: how our actions or inactions can dangerously impact those we love, and how, from behind the mask, we are promoting community and neighborhood health, while protecting and saving the lives of our loved ones and those with whom we come into contact daily. 

The music video PSA features guest appearances by well-known and everyday New Yorkers – artists, public health experts, religious and civic leaders, athletes, media personalities, entertainers and families, all wearing masks or demonstrating proper donning, doffing, and storing for re-use techniques. Among the participants are: rappers Niko Brim and Rob Base; New York Jets linebacker, James Burgess; Broadway legend Irene Gandy; Chief Jeffrey B. Maddrey, NYPD Chief of Community Affairs; Commissioner Benjamin Tucker, NYPD First Deputy Commissioner; DJ Dee Wiz, touring DJ and Producer; author and poet Jacqueline Woodson; music executive Sal Abbatiello; award-winning broadcaster Cheryl Wills; Rick Patel, Deputy Special Agent in Charge, Homeland Security Investigations, New York; radio personality Sasha the Diva; and, virologist Dr. Angela Rasmussen (full list of participants).

"Behind the Mask is a love letter and an ode from the people of New York to everyone around the world," says Lori Rose Benson, Executive Director and CEO of Hip Hop Public Health. "The song's lyrics literally bring people together with a message of love, unity and hope. Our work is far from over, and we see Behind the Mask as a natural way for Hip Hop Public Health and our supporters to advance our mission of propelling the dialogue and action around COVID-19 forward with kindness and humanity at the heart of our message and towards our goal of stopping the spread."

Says Doug E. Fresh, "Behind the Mask is a classic R&B-inspired track infused with the forthrightness of hip hop to deliver a vital, lifesaving message. Continuing on this journey with my friend Darryl DMC McDaniels as we join forces with 'The Love King' himself, Raheem DeVaughn, will hopefully move people and inspire them to wear a mask to protect themselves and their loved ones."

Raheem DeVaughn adds, "It was an honor to collaborate with Hip Hop Public Health, Doug E. Fresh and Darryl DMC McDaniels on this project. Everyone has, in some way, been impacted by COVID-19 and we all need to listen and adhere to the message of Behind the Mask as a symbol of love, a symbol of trust and a way forward to a better future."

As a long-time supporter and Advisory Board member of Hip Hop Public Health, Darryl DMC McDaniels comments, "I know first-hand how music, and naturally, hip hop can impact people in a positive manner. Behind the Mask is a powerful example of this and I am convinced that it will make a difference."

Hip Hop Public Health (HHPH) Completes Trilogy Of COVID-19 Music Video PSAs With Release Of Behind the Mask (Hip Hop Public Health)

Behind the Mask -The Lyrics:

Behind The Mask
By Q. Worthy, Barnard “BJ” Gray, and Joshua Banks

(Verse1 )
A symbol of love
A symbol of trust
Between us
I wear it for you
You wear it for me
A promise
I put on the mask
Out of respect for the masses
And all those left behind
To salute and honor
All the first responders
Battling on the front lines

(Hook)
You got my back
I got your back
Behind the mask
It’s not
Much to ask
We’ll save the world
From behind the mask
If you feel alone
Just know
You’re not invisible
Cause I still see you
Behind the mask

(Verse2)
Now we can’t pretend
The state that we’re in, is not dangerous
One minute we’re close
Then six feet away like strangers
There’s a virus outside
Threatening all of our lives
And we can’t let it in
Not just for you but for all
To prevent a loss
We put on the mask for them

(Hook)
You got my back
I got your back
Behind the mask
It’s not
Much to ask
We’ll save the world
From behind the mask
If you feel alone
Just know
You’re not invisible
Cause I still see you
Behind the mask
Yeah I still see you
Behind the mask

(Rap)
Now here’s a little story about this year
Who woulda thought we would end up here
Fresh decade we was barely in it
New year came wit a world pandemic
But it’ll get better
The storm we’ll weather
Heads held high as we stand together
We gotta do our part to stop the spread
All pull together like we never did
First, wash your hands make sure they’re clean
20 secs or more is what I mean
Put ya mask on don’t matter what kind
Cloth, surgical, N95
Before you take ya mask off
Go and wash ya hands off
Fold it up outside in so the germs touch
Store your mask in a paper bag
Then one last time go and wash ya hands

Behind the Mask - The Video:

• The Behind the Mask video was produced by IDEKO, a New York-based experiential production agency. To learn more, please visit www.hhph.org. 

About Hip Hop Public Health:

Hip Hop Public Health (HHPH) is an internationally recognized organization that creates and implements multimedia public health and education interventions designed to improve health literacy, inspire behavior change and promote health equity. Based in New York City, HHPH was founded in Harlem in 2006 with the mission to empower youth and families around the country – and the globe— with the knowledge and skills to make healthier choices, reducing preventable health conditions. Through a research-driven developmental process created by Columbia University Neurologist Dr. Olajide Williams (a.k.a. the "Hip Hop Doc"), Hip Hop Public Health works with socially conscious artists and public health experts to create scalable, highly engaging, culturally relevant music and multimedia "edutainment" tools.

The Hip Hop Public Health team, led by physical education veteran and public health leader Lori Rose Benson, is a collective comprised of not only health and education professionals (including nutritionists, public health researchers, teachers, physicians, behavioral scientists, and a student advisory board), but also proven-successful multi-media professionals and A-list iconic rap stars and pop artists including Doug E. Fresh, Chuck D, DMC of Run DMC, Ashanti, Jordin Sparks, as well children's television writers/producers (formerly of Sesame Street). All HHPH music, videos, comic books, video games and guidance documents are available for free and can be accessed on its online resource repository.

SOURCE: Hip Hop Public Health