Dr.Sherajuli Shelley : Fellow of Royal Society Biology of the United Kingdom. Bactolac Pharmaceutical Accuon Labs Inc , NY. USA winder labs Winder labs
GOLD MEDALS AWARDED TO DR. S.I.SHELLEY AS A OUTSTANDING SCIENTIST Human rights and enviironmental protection and corona various and dangerous virus and microorganisms marching to us .by this time in different causes human rights violated and to relatibity
to the environment is promotional to each other .is it focusing albert einstens theory of relativity”
i am with my fellow scientist from USSR academe my of science, institute microbiology moscow lenisky prospect ussr.
if we can solve problems about the genetics and tomorrow.if we can regulate our gens then we can be able to control attack from any virusand pathogens or infectious diseses .so we have to very careful about to study genetical enginnnerins .so gene mutations as you know, a mution is a sudden changes that take place in the genes of cell . we still don’t know ckearly about the gene mutations mecahanisams so if we can stop sudden chages we can save our body for cancer out growth means extra growth bot chromosomes and genes are able to undergo such cganges. Here corona virus goes slow and steadily and makes anoxiousgrowth as a result people stats feeling not confortable and as results death occur.mutations we know that the gene is astring of bases joined together in a certain order but corona virus did not follow this order so ,people dangerously affected and starat feeling abnormal. The order iis dcode that tells how the amino acids will be joined if the bases changes the code will also changes .this cange happen in corna out order.
We scientist know the hemoglobin of red blood cells has over 560 amino acids . the one in the sixth place in the code is glutamic acid . but in some people the gene has changed . because of this these people have valine in the sixth place this chanhe keeps ttheir haemoglobin from working correctly .people with this mutation have sickle –cell anemia and corona attack them immediately .so ,genetic for tomorrowis important to save our human civilization and human beings
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted food supply chains, intensifying the need for biotechnological solutions for achieving food security. Crops and vegetables are a significant source for food, materials, and medicine. Thus, there is great incentive to genetically engineer crops that possess desirable traits like greater biomass production and resistance to pathogens while requiring less resources including space and labor.1
One of the most commonly used tools for gene delivery in plants is Agrobacterium, a Gram-negative bacterium, that can transfect both plant protoplasts (cells without cell walls) and tissues (such as leaves). However, this method is unsuitable for stable, long-term integration of DNA cargo and it requires repeated and tedious plant transformation each time transient gene expression ends.

Now we are the scientist to exercise our brain find out scientific solutions to end this suffering .in developing country food crises much more than has never lot of cant feed their family , sleeping at night with out food .empty stomach they are remaining government cand solve problems governments itself has problems . we sceitist , social worker have to find solutions .find out these suffering people and help them has much as possible.scientist have to find out friendly microorganism to use them at food sources in various we canisolate and findout thease microorganisams

our environment is totally changes ,the place never imagine for rain now falling snow , where never thinking awith out snow now disappearing snow. Nobody ever enjoy chrismass day or happy new year with out snow now no snow at all .everythings happening because we are violating human rights and for get about envirionmental protection. If environment is protected • One of those mosquitoes entered into the nostrils of the king (namrud). Allah punished him by it, and he was in so much pain that he would continually hit his head against objects (hoping to make

Most people would agree that just talking about the problems have caused most of the major problems , so people must look for solutions .one step toward finding solutions is changing peoples values and attitudes toward the environment if environment is clean and nice there is chance to grow corona or any fatal virus whisch are cause of our deaths.a persons values are made up of the relatives worth or importance the persons places on things. A person’s attitude is a feeling oremotion toward a fact pr an activirt. The following example might help us to better understand these terms
Values and attitude are related. Values help people decide what they think about think is important .peole who think that eagles are a danger to their sheep may think nothing of shooting the worlds the worlds last eagle. But people who think eagles are a danger to their sheep may think nothing of shooting the worlds last eagle. But people who thinking of eagles aaaaaaaare importanttime. Efforts and money to protect them .however the solutions to environment and virus problems are not easy to find . to find solutions to environmental and virus problems people have to look to find . to find solutions to environmental solutions t environmeemtal oroblems . peope are not easy to find. To find solutions to environmrental problems .people have to look closely at each problems such an effort an effort can be successsful only if peole undrstand all the issues that surrounded a problems .one they undrstand the issues , people can decide how the problems should be solved . sometimes environmental and contamination problems are not easy to solve because the issues are involved with business ,industry and culturals meting . dances , studies etc and our immediate needs but cause of covid -19 SAID : STOP and STOP and STOP.
During the past 50 years after independended of bangladesh from pakistan many fresh water and marsh and swamp areas of the bangladesh have been filled in. they been used for dumps housing projects and airports such facilities are necessary and important but swamps and marshes provides breeding grounds for many different kinds of animals some of these animals forms important parts of foods webs. Check with local authorities to see if any swanp of marsh areasin BOSTI Oof poor people in your areas have been filled if so, how is the land being used now?do you think the land is being usedwisely. They are lot of contaminations.
Corona can damages her every beauty so becareful.
the mosquito exit or simply because of sheer madness that resulted from the pain) until he finaly died
this type of mosqueto destroy namrud civilization the babylian culture and civilization because abnormal activitites of namrud and his peoples at last the disarmed week mosquito enter into nose of namrud and namrud died left his big empire and 10 thousand wifes and wealth.

The world will be protected and human right will be fullfiled but alas already we late. Waith for masss destruction and waith for new virus coming from Siberia antracrtica and other areas of the world and through animal and humsans,time will come you cant eat anythingseven food crises already in developing and poorcountries are goin on without food lot of people dying government reporting falsifying lot of people dying with out food and with corona .very soon developed country will face lot of problems infectious diseases ,skin diseases some where willbroke out fire somewhere will broke out snow and cold and people and animal will die .wait ladies and gentleman. There will be remain perfect ladies and gentleman all will be suffer with dangerous diseases.honestly speaking world leadership has been failed to bring peace prosperity and happinies to their respective peoples .influences of bad leader the world present day civilization would be, this is about my prophesy.i am not Nostradamus nor astrologer nor a religious spiritual or GOD’s Messenger I am very simple and knows very well environtal protection and human rights.
The king Abraha and his kingdom was destroy by little bird Ababil. No big elephants save him. Such virus mearching towards us no neclor weapons and modern arm cant save us from the virus .we already proof it and now we are waiting dangerous virus and anaerobic bacteria are coming to us , no scientist , no chemist and no microbiologist or biologist and we microbiologist environmentalist and immunologist and virologist don’t know prepared almighty GOD will destroy us by sending to us more small virus than mosquito and that was killed by Namrud.same LUT and HUD and moses peiod and nohas period lot of civilization destroyed because people disobey God and follow anti logic way life style and destroy environments . so we are waiting for dangerous virus no neoclear weapons no moder weapons and arms or chemical weapons cant save us .
Now snow is melting from syberiya lot of virus and bacteria was under thease snow , even we the scientist don’t what are they how to prevent their growth and save our life. One corona virus we becamome puzzle to decide what to do but we control thousands of million virus coming towards us , how we solve the problems.we can prepared attach each other country without any thinking but we cant decide what type of weapons we will use to destroy thease type of virus and bacteria that we are going to fight to save our modern civilization

Same things happened with king abraha thease type little bird named Ababil destroy his full kingdom and killed his elephant arm forces . we have to realize what ugly things we are doing , gay .lesbian , rape hijack robbery killing msaking womren to be naked came to works showing peep show ,showing full naked women like animal moneky show business.please wait Ababil or mosquieto comimg or small virus coming or one celledwith many spore formimg anaerobic bacteria is coming from syberiya..
People probably thought that the environment was constant and would never change . it’s easy to understand why they might have hadsuch ideas.long ago the air was clear and always smelled clean.nobody thought that the air was clear and always smelled clean. Nobody thought that the atmospheare migh change . nor did anyone know how factories and cars could pollut the air.

Social Sevelopment and Cultural Activists Fatema Nasirin.
Without cultural development and development of arts and culture depends upon talented acisitivists and covid -19 destroys us said international reputed journalist: Kazi Sahidul Islam

Disease epidemics and outbreaks often generate conspiracy theories and misperceptions that mislead people about the risks they face and how best to protect themselves. We investigate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at combating false and unsupported information about the Zika epidemic and subsequent yellow fever outbreak in Brazil. Results from a nationally representative survey show that conspiracy theories and other misperceptions about Zika are widely believed. Moreover, results from three preregistered survey experiments suggest that efforts to counter misperceptions about diseases during epidemics and outbreaks may not always be effective. We find that corrective information not only fails to reduce targeted Zika misperceptions but also reduces the accuracy of other beliefs about the disease. In addition, although corrective information about the better-known threat from yellow fever was more effective, none of these corrections affected support for vector control policies or intentions to engage in preventive behavior.

Public health officials struggle to counter false or unsupported claims about health, medicine, and science. These false claims can gain adherents and circulate in public discourse and through social networks despite a lack of scientific evidence to support them (1). This problem is especially acute during disease epidemics and outbreaks, when governments must often work to dispel misinformation and build public knowledge around disease control and prevention in the face of a surge of misinformation (2, 3).
Unfortunately, efforts to counter misinformation can have mixed or unintended effects. Although corrective information is often somewhat effective at changing beliefs (4), these effects can vary substantially (5) and, in some cases, may be counterproductive for beliefs or behavior (6). Assessing the effectiveness of efforts to combat misinformation about disease epidemics and outbreaks is thus crucial for public health. There is some evidence that corrective information can reduce false beliefs about diseases under these circumstances, but studies conducted to date often rely on fictional scenarios and/or participants from unaffected countries (
A particular challenge in this context is that many public health misperceptions are rooted in conspiracy theories, which attribute events to the secret actions of malevolent, powerful forces that attempt to conceal their role (9). These narratives are particularly common during public crises like disease epidemics. For instance, conspiracy beliefs and other forms of misinformation have been a major concern during Ebola outbreaks in West Africa (10, 11), the Zika outbreak in Brazil (12), and the recent yellow fever crisis in Brazil (13). Conspiracy beliefs often proliferate after unexpected or tragic events like these because they help people explain away or diminish feelings of lack of control, chaos, or uncontrolled risks (14). Such effects could be detrimental—exposure to conspiracy theories has been found to reduce people’s intentions to take action to protect themselves from communicable disease (15). Conspiracy beliefs are thus potentially dangerous during health emergencies if they discourage people from taking preventive action and/or reduce support for policies designed to contain epidemics.
The epidemic of Zika in 2015 and 2016 and subsequent outbreak of yellow fever in 2018 in Brazil illustrate how conspiracy theories about disease can spread despite attempts by governments to correct misinformation. False information circulated widely in the country about the causes of both diseases, the reasons for their spread, and the consequences they could have for human health. Public health officials struggled to combat these claims, which, in some cases, motivated counterproductive policies. For instance, health officials in parts of Brazil banned a pesticide that helped control mosquitoes because it was incorrectly believed to cause microcephaly (16).
We examine the prevalence and persistence of misperceptions and conspiracy beliefs during the Zika epidemic and yellow fever outbreak in Brazil. The goal of our study is to see if giving corrective information of the kind that public health campaigns provide to citizens can improve the accuracy of people’s beliefs or have other beneficial effects on public attitudes and behavioral intentions. We report two principal findings. First, results from a nationally representative survey demonstrate that Zika misperceptions and conspiracy beliefs were prevalent in Brazil during the epidemic. Second, results from survey experiments conducted there indicate that exposure to corrective information adapted from World Health Organization (WHO) failed to measurably decrease beliefs in targeted myths about Zika, while it unexpectedly decreased the accuracy of other Zika beliefs. Corrective information was more effective in reducing misperceptions about the better-known threat from yellow fever, but it did not measurably increase support for vector control policies or intentions to engage in preventive behavior against mosquitoes for either disease. These results suggest that current approaches to combating conspiracy theories and misperceptions may not be effective and can, in some cases, undermine public understanding of epidemics. Public health officials and other communicators should therefore conduct experimental trials to ensure that information campaigns are not counterproductive.
This article proceeds in two parts. We first report the results of a nationally representative face-to-face survey conducted in Brazil in April and May 2017 to measure the prevalence of Zika misperceptions and conspiracy beliefs. Our results, which were collected while Zika disease transmission was still ongoing and additional Zika-related cases of microcephaly and Guillain-Barre syndrome were being reported (17), indicate that most Brazilians understood the role of mosquitoes in spreading Zika and that the virus was not spread by casual contact. However, a distressing number of people endorsed misperceptions that had previously circulated widely in Brazil (often as part of conspiracy theories) blaming the spread of the disease on genetically modified mosquitoes and attributing the surge in microcephaly cases to the use of larvicides in drinking water and to prenatal vaccines (12, 18, 19).
Second, we report the results of three preregistered survey experiments conducted in 2017 and 2018 on large online samples of Brazilian adults to test the efficacy of public health messages intended to reduce conspiracy theories and misperceptions about Zika (both years) and yellow fever (2018 only). The 2017 Zika experiment examined the effectiveness of public health communications during a disease epidemic in which misinformation was spreading widely. The 2018 Zika experiment was conducted to replicate and extend our initial findings with a broader set of knowledge items, while the 2018 yellow fever study was conducted to determine whether these findings would hold in the context of an outbreak of a better-known disease (see table S1 for an overview of all studies).
The survey and experiments followed all institutional review board guidelines with respect to human subjects and were reviewed by Dartmouth College’s Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (STUDY00029828; approved 19 September 2016, and modified 30 April 2018).
Materials and methods
To measure Brazilians’ beliefs about Zika, we fielded a module as part of the nationally representative 2017 AmericasBarometer survey. The survey was coordinated and supervised by the Latin American Public Opinion Project, which conducts biannual surveys in 29 countries in the Western Hemisphere. The AmericasBarometer survey drew from a nationally representative sample of voting age adults in Brazil that was stratified by major regions of the country, size of municipality, and urban and rural areas within municipalities. Interviews were conducted face to face at respondent residences by enumerators who used tablet devices to record responses. In total, surveys were conducted with 1532 respondents from 5 April to 11 May 2017. Table S2 summarizes respondent demographics. Our module included questions about the causes and consequences of the Zika outbreak, beliefs in Zika conspiracy theories and misperceptions, support for Zika control policies, preventive behavioral intentions, and perceived threats posed by Zika. To avoid potential social desirability effects, none of these claims were referred to as “conspiracy theories” or “misperceptions” in the survey, which presented them in a neutral fashion (see the Supplementary Materials for exact wording).
Brazilians regarded Zika as a serious threat in 2017—8 in 10 rated the threat it posed to health in Brazil as “high” or “very high.” However, the accuracy of their beliefs about the virus varied substantially.
We first measure beliefs about Zika transmission by asking respondents to evaluate the accuracy of three statements—that Zika can be transmitted by mosquitoes (true) and by sexual contact (true) and that it can be transmitted by casual contact (false)—on a four-point scale ranging from “not at all accurate” to “very accurate.” Figure 1A summarizes the percentage of respondents who rated each of the three statements as “very accurate” or “somewhat accurate.” Our data indicate that 92% of Brazilians endorse the true statement that Zika is spread by mosquitoes, the dominant mode of infection to date. Moreover, 83% of Brazilians know that Zika is not spread by casual contact—only 17% endorsed this false claim as accurate. However, just 40% correctly recognize that Zika can also be spread by sexual contact, a less frequent vector but one that could pose an increased threat to public health once rates of infection are established in the population.
Means and 95% confidence intervals from the Brazil wave of the 2016 and 2017 AmericasBarometer survey (n = 1532; 5 April to 11 May 2017). “T” and “F” indicate true and false, respectively, for the outcome measures.
The data also indicate that many Brazilians endorse conspiracy theories and misperceptions regarding Zika that could hinder public health efforts to raise Zika awareness and encourage prevention. More than 63% of respondents indicated that it was “very accurate” or “somewhat accurate” that GMO (genetically modified organism) mosquitoes spread Zika. Slightly more than half also incorrectly endorsed claims attributing the increased prevalence of microcephaly to larvicides and the Tdap vaccine, respectively.
Last, we examine the correlates of these beliefs. presents ordinary least squares regression (OLS) models examining the relationship between demographic characteristics (education, income, sex, age, urban residence, and region) and the Zika outcome measures considered earlier: beliefs about possible Zika vectors (columns 1 to 3) and a composite measure of Zika misperception belief (column 4) from items measuring belief that Zika is spread by GMO mosquitoes and that larvicides or the Tdap vaccine caused the increase in microcephaly (α = 0.57).

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.005 (two-sided); OLS models estimated using survey weights. Data from the Brazil wave of the 2016 and 2017 AmericasBarometer survey (n = 1532; 5 April to 11 May 2017). Outcome variables are measures of factual belief about Zika and a composite measure indicating greater misperceptions about Zika, respectively (see the Supplementary Materials for wording). Respondents ages 16 to 30 are the reference category for age, and the north is the excluded category for region.

Although most of the estimated effects are small and the variance in Zika-related beliefs accounted for by these factors is limited, we note the following correlations. First, respondents with more years of schooling are less likely to believe that Zika is spread through casual contact and less likely to endorse misperceptions about Zika based on conspiracy theories (P < 0.005 in both cases). However, more educated respondents are also less likely to believe that Zika can be transmitted via sexual contact (P < 0.005). We also find that respondents from urban areas are less likely to believe, incorrectly, that Zika can be contracted via casual contact (P < 0.005). Last, there are also regional differences in responses across Brazil. Perhaps most concerning, in the northeast and southeast—the regions with the highest numbers of documented Zika infections—respondents are more likely to be misinformed about transmission via casual contact (P < 0.005 in both cases) and marginally more likely to endorse Zika-related misperceptions (P < 0.10 in both cases).
To investigate how to counter public health misperceptions and conspiracy theories, we conducted three preregistered, randomized online survey experiments on large samples of Brazilian adults in 2017 and 2018. Specifically, we conducted two experiments examining the effects of corrective information about Zika (in 2017 and 2018) and one experiment examining the effects of a similar correction about yellow fever (2018). Both the Zika and yellow fever experiments randomized exposure to disease-specific corrective information adapted from WHO materials. In each experiment, we estimated the effect of exposure to corrective information (relative to a placebo condition) on endorsement of the Zika/yellow fever misperceptions that were specifically debunked in our treatments, on belief in other claims (some factually correct, some incorrect) about Zika/yellow fever, on support for public policies that could prevent the spread of the disease, and on self-reported intention to take steps to protect oneself from the disease. Question wording for all outcome measures is provided in the Supplementary Materials.
Although corrective information can reduce false beliefs, there are also reasons for concern. First, corrections can spur directionally motivated reasoning among people with a predisposition to endorse conspiracy theories (20) or among people who believe in the specific misperceptions that are being debunked; for these people, corrections may fail to reduce misperceptions (21). Similarly, exposure to false information may, in some cases, produce a so-called continued influence or belief perseverance effect even after the misinformation is definitively corrected (22). Introducing false information can increase the familiarity of a false claim and thereby cause it to seem more plausible, especially over time as memory for the truth value of the claims fades (23).
Last, unexpected results of the 2017 Zika experiment (discussed below) led us to consider whether corrective messages could undermine people’s confidence in other disease-specific beliefs or in their ability to understand scientific issues more generally. Research on meta-cognition demonstrates that people’s confidence in the validity of their beliefs affects their openness to persuasion (24). These judgments may not always be applied accurately. Research on the so-called tainted truth effect finds that people who are warned about misinformation may overcorrect and become less likely to believe or recall accurate event details (25). In addition, efforts to intervene to warn people about the presence of false information can have spillover effects on belief in accurate claims (26). (Throughout the article, we use the term “spillover effects” to refer to any impact of corrective interventions on beliefs that are unrelated to the specific corrective information delivered.)
On the basis of the research discussed above, we test the following hypotheses, which were preregistered in the Evidence in Governance and Politics (EGAP) archive before researcher access to outcome data. All deviations from the preregistered study plan are noted below (URLs omitted for peer review).
First, we test the hypothesis that corrective information about the disease in question will reduce beliefs in targeted myths about the disease and increase the accuracy of respondents’ beliefs about these causes and consequences of the disease both immediately (H1a) and after a delay (H1b). If these myths undermine support for policies to prevent the disease in question and reduce behavioral intentions to protect oneself, then corrective information should increase support for policies intended to reduce the spread of the Aedes aegypti mosquito (H2), the primary vector for the disease, and increase respondents’ intention to protect themselves from mosquito bites (H3). In addition, we test whether the effects of corrective information on belief in myths about the disease in question vary by respondents’ pretreatment level of trust in governmental and health institutions (H4a), a factor for which previous studies find differing results (27, 28), and their predisposition to believe in conspiracy theories (H4b).
To evaluate our interpretation of the results of the 2017 Zika experiment, we preregistered additional hypotheses that were formally tested only in the 2018 Zika and yellow fever experiments. These predicted that the myths correction treatment will decrease respondents’ belief in factual claims about the disease that are unrelated to the content of the treatment (H5a) and respondents’ confidence in their ability to find the truth behind medical and health disputes (H5b).
We also investigate the following research questions for which we have weaker theoretical priors and therefore did not preregister directional hypotheses. First, we consider how a myths correction treatment affects respondents’ policy opinions and intended behavior after a delay (RQ1). Second, we examine how the effects of a myths correction treatment on policy opinions and intended behavior vary by respondents’ levels of trust and conspiratorial predispositions both immediately and after a delay (RQ2).
Materials and methods
In the 2017 and 2018 Zika experiments and the 2018 yellow fever experiment, we randomized participants into a myths correction treatment condition or into a placebo condition representing the no-information baseline. Using this between-subjects design, we tested the effects of corrective information debunking myths about Zika or yellow fever on the following outcome variables: belief in the myths targeted by corrective information, other disease-related beliefs, support for policies to prevent the spread of the disease, and intention to engage in preventive behaviors to protect one’s self from it.
Our treatments reflect how the WHO and other public health entities communicate information about disease epidemics to affected populations (see the Supplementary Materials for the wording used in the study instruments). The myths correction treatment used in our Zika experiments was adapted from a report issued by the WHO titled “Dispelling rumours around Zika and complications” ( Similarly, the mosquito information and preventive behavior treatments in our Zika experiments were adapted from communication materials released by the Pan American Health Organization for use with the public ( and For the 2018 yellow fever experiment, the myths correction information was adapted from reports from the Brazilian Ministry of Health and the fact-checking website AOS Fatos ( and
Last, the 2017 Zika experiment also tested two alternate public health messages that were used by the WHO in Brazil: providing accurate information about the Aedes aegypti mosquito, the main carrier of Zika, and describing steps people can take to reduce mosquito breeding in and around their home. Results from these conditions are described in the Supplementary Materials.
Sample composition
The 2017 Zika experiment and the 2018 Zika and yellow fever experiments were administered online to separate convenience samples of Brazilian adults recruited by an opt-in panel of participants maintained by online survey vendor Survey Sampling International.
In the 2017 Zika experiment, data collection occurred in two waves. The first wave, which included our experimental treatments, was fielded from 12 to 24 April 2017 and included 1283 respondents in the myths correction and placebo conditions (n = 616 and n = 667, respectively). These respondents were then recontacted and invited to participate in a second wave of the study, which was fielded from 1 to 30 May 2017 and included the same outcome measures as wave 1. The median interval between responses to waves 1 and 2 among those who participated in both was 17 days. In total, 899 respondents participated in the second wave (recontact rate, 70.6%). Attrition did not vary systematically between conditions (P = 0.16), although wave 2 respondents were significantly older and more educated and more likely to self-identify as white (see table S2 for descriptive statistics on the wave 1 and 2 samples).
The 2018 Zika and yellow fever experiments were conducted from 17 to 31 May 2018. A total of 2173 respondents were randomly assigned to either the Zika experiment or the yellow fever experiment (n = 1081 and n = 1092, respectively). Respondents in each experiment were then randomly assigned to a disease-specific myths correction condition (n = 547 for Zika, n = 501 for yellow fever) or to a placebo condition (n = 534 for Zika, n = 591 for yellow fever).
We note that these experiments were conducted at different points in the life cycles of the two diseases. Zika was a new disease to Brazil when it began to spread in late 2015. Cases of Zika and Google Trends data on searches for information about the disease peaked in Brazil during the first few months of 2016, just over 1 year before our 2017 Zika experiment and 2 years before our 2018 Zika experiment (29, 30). By contrast, yellow fever was a more familiar disease in Brazil but the outbreak was also a more recent experience for participants in our 2018 yellow fever experiment—cases of and search interest in the disease peaked in January and February 2018, just a few months before our study (31). The expected effects of these differences in timing on our experiments are not obvious. If beliefs are more firm when an issue is at peak salience, then we might expect our corrective treatments to have less effect on beliefs about yellow fever compared with Zika. Alternatively, if beliefs take root over time, then the relative impact of corrective information might be reversed.
Consistent with other opt-in internet samples, participants in these studies are more white, educated, and wealthy than the Brazilian population (see table S2, which compares the characteristics of the online samples with our representative face-to-face survey sample). However, online convenience samples such as these have been shown to generate experimental treatment effect estimates that closely correspond to those obtained from representative samples (32, 33). Balance tests indicate the experimental randomizations were successful (details available upon request).

Outcome measures
We collected four types of outcome measures in each of our experiments (the exact wording of all questions is provided in the Supplementary Materials). These measures capture belief in misperceptions that were targeted by the corrective information treatment, other beliefs related to the disease or its effects, support for policies intended to reduce the spread of the disease, and self-reported intention to engage in preventive behaviors.
The misperceptions targeted by the myths correction treatment were the same in both the 2017 and 2018 Zika experiments: the beliefs that GMO mosquitoes caused the outbreak and that larvicides or vaccines cause microcephaly. In the yellow fever experiment, the myths correction treatment instead targeted beliefs that the yellow fever vaccine had been rendered ineffective by genetic mutations in the virus, that the vaccine has life-threatening side effects, and that an alternative remedy based on a propolis made by bees provides effective protection against infection. No nationally representative data exist on the prevalence of these myths that is analogous to our Zika survey, but Brazilian and international news sources reported that the misperceptions about yellow fever we tested were being widely circulated online in early 2018 (13, 34, 35).
As noted above, we also measured other disease-related beliefs that were not targeted by the myths correction treatment. The 2017 Zika experiment measured people’s beliefs that Zika can be contracted via mosquito bite (true), by sex (true), and by casual contact (false), and that Zika has potential neurological effects (true). The 2018 Zika experiment not only included these items but also measured beliefs in additional true statements about potential transmission of the virus in utero and via blood transfusion and its connection to microcephaly, as well as false statements about microcephaly causing paralysis and vulnerability to Zika among people with weakened immune systems. The 2018 yellow fever experiment included a similar set of disease-related belief questions. These included belief in true statements that the disease spreads via mosquito bite, that it is spread by the same mosquito as Zika, that its symptoms include fever and vomiting, that the disease can be fatal, that it is now present in cities, and that the government recommends all Brazilians be immunized, as well as belief in incorrect statements that there is no effective vaccine for yellow fever, that the vaccine can cause damage to the immune system, and that the vaccine is a fraud perpetrated by drug companies.
The third set of outcomes measured support for policies intended to reduce the spread of the disease. These were the same in both Zika experiments, which asked respondents about their support for government policies of releasing GMO mosquitoes to limit disease spread, treating water with larvicides, authorizing health officials to enter properties to prevent mosquito-breeding conditions, and recommending the Tdap vaccine. In the yellow fever experiment, we included the first three of these policies and support for fining citizens who do not get vaccinated against yellow fever and for requiring the vaccine for children attending public schools.
The fourth category, preventive intentions, was identical in each experiment. Respondents were asked about their use of long-sleeved shirts and pants, mosquito spray/repellent, and screens or closed windows to keep mosquitoes out.
The items measuring beliefs targeted by the myths correction treatment and other disease-related beliefs are measured on a four-point Likert scale from “not at all accurate” to “very accurate.” The policy response items are scored on a 1 (strongly disapprove) to 10 (strongly approve) scale. The behavioral measures are scored on a five-point scale from never (1) to always (5).
Following our preregistration, we conducted principal components factor analysis to examine the extent to which the relevant questions from each set described above constitute reliable scales of targeted misperceptions, other disease-related beliefs, policy support, and preventive intentions. In the first, third, and fourth sets, we found that the items load onto a single factor. In those cases, we create composite indices based on all the items in the group. The questions on other disease-related beliefs, however, do not load onto a single factor, and we therefore analyze responses to each of them separately.
Last, the 2018 Zika and yellow fever experiments measure respondents’ beliefs that they can discern the truth about health and science issues, which was adapted from previous research (36). The exact wording is provided in the Supplementary Appendix.

Results: 2017 and 2018 Zika experiments
We first present the results of the 2017 and 2018 Zika experiments. Both studies (which use identical designs) estimate the effects of exposure to our myths correction message in a series of OLS regression models with robust standard errors (all reported P values are two-sided). However, all results in the main text from the 2017 and 2018 Zika experiments and the 2018 yellow fever experiment are substantively identical when estimated using ordered probit models (see the Supplementary Materials).
We begin by examining the effect of corrective information on endorsement of Zika misperceptions. Table 2 summarizes the effects of the myths correction treatment on the Zika-related misperceptions targeted in both the 2017 and 2018 experiments. The treatment failed to reduce mean belief in these myths significantly in either experiment. In the 2017 experiment, the myths correction treatment had no measurable effect on any of the three mistaken or unsupported claims compared to the placebo condition. Similarly, the 2018 study found that the myths correction treatment had no measurable effect on misperceptions beliefs overall or in specific beliefs that larvicides cause Zika or that vaccines cause microcephaly in the 2018 experiment, although beliefs in GMO mosquito transmission did decline significantly (P = 0.002). These findings are precisely estimated; the 95% confidence intervals for the myths correction treatment effects in the experiments exclude even small positive effects on the four-point misperceptions index (2017, −0.08, 0.08; 2018, −0.14, 0.04). H1a is thus not supported.

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.005 (two-sided); OLS models with robust standard errors. Respondents are separate samples from Survey Sampling International’s online panel in Brazil. For each outcome measure, higher values indicate greater belief in the claim or claims in question [measured on a Likert scale ranging from “not at all accurate” (1) to “very accurate” (4); see the Supplementary Materials for wording]. All outcome measures are false.

Exploratory analyses suggest that these null results are not attributable to a lack of respondent attention to the experimental stimuli. The median time respondents spent viewing the information of interest was quite high for an online survey: 54.7 s (2017) and 54.8 s (2018) for the placebo conditions and 57.9 s (2017) and 53.8 s (2018) for the myths correction treatments.
Additional analyses reveal that corrective information is similarly ineffective among respondents who may have differing levels of pretreatment motivation to endorse conspiracy theories. In particular, there is no consistent evidence in either study that the effects of the myths correction treatment vary by respondents’ conspiratorial predispositions or trust in governmental and health institutions (H4a and H4b, respectively; see the Supplementary Materials).
Apart from its effects on targeted misperceptions, corrective information might affect other beliefs that respondents hold about the disease in question. Table 3A and fig. S1B indicate that the myths correction treatment unexpectedly reduced the accuracy of respondent’s beliefs about two of three true factual claims in the 2017 Zika experiment. Specifically, the perceived accuracy of statements about Zika’s neurological effects and the role of mosquitoes in spreading the disease declined (P < 0.005 in both cases), although the treatment had no measurable effect on beliefs about Zika being transmitted through sexual contact (P = 0.60). In addition, the myths correction treatment decreased the incorrect belief that Zika can be transmitted by casual contact such as a handshake (P = 0.002), suggesting that the treatment reduced the perceived accuracy of claims about Zika regardless of whether they are true or untrue. These effects are also jointly significant in an exploratory F test of the null hypothesis of no effect on respondent beliefs across these four outcome variables (P < 0.005).

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.005 (two-sided); OLS models with robust standard errors. Respondents are members of Survey Sampling International’s online panel in Brazil. For each outcome measure, higher values indicate greater belief in the claim or claims in question [measured on a Likert scale ranging from “not at all accurate” (1) to “very accurate” (4); see the Supplementary Materials for wording]. “T” and “F” indicate true and false, respectively, for the outcome measures.

In the 2018 Zika experiment, we therefore tested the hypothesis that the myths correction treatment undermines belief in factual claims about the disease more generally (H5a). Our results again indicated that people became less likely to believe in statements about Zika after exposure to the myths correction treatment. These effects were particularly concentrated among accurate statements—exposure to the treatment reduced the accuracy of beliefs about four of six true factual claims but did not move beliefs significantly for any of the three false claims tested. An exploratory F test again finds that we can reject the null hypothesis of no treatment effect across the nine outcome variables (P < 0.005).
Overall, across two Zika experiments, the myths correction treatment measurably decreased belief in 7 of 13 statements about Zika, including 6 of the 9 accurate statements that were tested. All seven remain significant at the P < 0.05 level in an exploratory analysis using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate. Although the magnitude of these effects is modest (Cohen’s d, 0.15 to 0.27; median, 0.19), the results paradoxically suggest that attempts to rebut misperceptions and conspiracy theories with corrective information actually reduced the accuracy of people’s beliefs about the true causes and consequences of Zika.
One interpretation of these results is that people became confused or less certain about what they knew as a result of exposure to the myths correction treatments. Across both Zika experiments, negative spillover effects on respondent knowledge were highly negatively correlated with baseline beliefs. This effect was observed for true statements (r = − 0.55) but not false ones (r = − 0.03), a finding that does not appear to be the result of a floor effect.
Why would such an effect occur? Treated respondents do not self-report feeling they are less able to discern the truth about complex health and science issues (H5b; see tables S21 and S29 for results from both the 2018 Zika and yellow fever experiments). Similarly, exploratory analyses also provide no consistent evidence that these effects vary by education or science knowledge (see tables S11 and S20), suggesting that the problem is more complex than a lack of understanding of the scientific information respondents were provided. Another possible interpretation is that respondents who skim the materials learn the gist (that some information about Zika is false) and apply it indiscriminately to other Zika-related beliefs. However, we find no consistent evidence of larger negative spillover effects on respondent knowledge among respondents who completed the pretreatment portion of the survey more quickly or who read the experimental materials more quickly in additional exploratory analyses (see tables S30 and S31).
Our results are instead consistent with a tainted truth effect in which a warning that specific information acquired previously is unreliable can diminish beliefs on related information not addressed in the warning (25). Corrections, like warnings, may increase skepticism generally, creating collateral damage to belief in accurate claims and information (26). Still, more research is needed to understand the mechanism by which corrective information decreases agreement with true claims, a question we address further in Discussion.
We also examined the effect of the myths correction treatment on respondents’ support for public policies intended to prevent Zika (H2) and respondents’ intentions to engage in preventive behavior (H3). As table S4 indicates, the treatment failed to significantly affect these outcome measures.
Last, to assess the durability of the effects of the myths correction treatment, the 2017 Zika experiment also surveyed participants after a delay and again measured our outcome variables. While communication effects generally decay over time, one potential concern with informational treatments such as ours is “illusion of truth” effects, which refer to people’s tendency to incorrectly remember previously discredited information as true at later points in time (23). For instance, while the myths and facts treatment did not have immediate effects on targeted misperceptions, it is possible that this message could have increased familiarity with the targeted claims and therefore increased their credibility at a later point in time. To examine this possibility (H1b), we recontacted respondents in the myths correction and placebo conditions after a delay and measured our outcome variables again. We find that the immediate effect of the myths and facts treatment on factual beliefs disappears after a delay (see table S12). Moreover, we find no significant differences in belief in targeted misperceptions, policy opinions, or behavioral intentions between these groups after a delay. Mirroring the results from wave 1, we also find no evidence that the effect of the myths correction treatment varies with respondents’ conspiratorial predispositions or trust in government and health institutions.
Results: 2018 yellow fever experiment
Experimental evaluation of a myths correction treatment on beliefs about yellow fever provided more encouraging results than those obtained for Zika. shows the effects of a myths correction treatment on targeted misperceptions and on factual claims unrelated to those addressed in the treatment The treatment diminished beliefs in two of the three targeted misperceptions (on the side effects of the vaccine and on the effects of propolis) and reduced overall misperceptions, providing support for H1a. The effect of the myths correction treatment on belief in other factual claims about the disease was weaker and less consistent than observed in the 2017 and 2018 Zika experiments. The yellow fever myths correction treatment increased belief in one of six true claims about the disease—that yellow fever is spread by the same mosquito as Zika—and diminished belief slightly in another—that yellow fever can be fatal. The treatment also diminished belief in one of three false claims—that the vaccine can damage the immune system. Beliefs in six of the nine claims unrelated to the treatment were unaffected. We thus do not find support for H5a. As noted above, H5b was also unsupported (see the Supplementary Materials).
Table 4 2018 yellow fever experiment results.
*P < 0.05, **P < .01, ***P < .005 (two-sided); OLS models with robust standard errors. Respondents are members of Survey Sampling International’s online panel in Brazil. For each outcome measure, higher values indicate greater belief in the claim or claims in question [measured on a Likert scale ranging from “not at all accurate” (1) to “very accurate” (4); see the Supplementary Materials for wording]. “Misperception belief” is a composite measure calculated as the mean of the three items listed. All misperception measures are false. “T” and “F” indicate true and false, respectively, for the other outcome measures.

The myths correction treatment had no effect on support for policies intended to reduce the spread of the disease, although intentions to engage in behaviors to protect oneself from yellow fever did increase significantly (P < 0.05; see the Supplementary Materials). Last, as in the 2017 and 2018 Zika experiments, we found no evidence that these experimental effects varied by trust in governmental and health institutions or respondents’ predisposition to believe in conspiracy theories (H4a/H4b; see the Supplementary Materials).
During disease epidemics and outbreaks, public health officials frequently struggle to counter conspiracy theories and misperceptions that discourage citizens from taking preventive action and reduce support for policies designed to contain the spread of disease. This article examines the prevalence and persistence of misperceptions and conspiracy theories in Brazil and reports results from preregistered experiments examining the effectiveness of current approaches to combating false beliefs during the Zika epidemic and subsequent yellow fever outbreak in the country.
Nationally representative survey results from Brazil indicate that the public is only partially informed about Zika and is vulnerable to false or unsupported beliefs. On a more positive note, Brazilians are well informed about whether Zika can be transmitted via mosquito bites and casual contact. However, they have less accurate beliefs about the risks of sexual contact, a less widely discussed mode of transmission. In addition, more than 63% of respondents falsely endorse the myth that GMO mosquitoes spread Zika when asked and more than half incorrectly state that larvicides in water and prenatal vaccines cause microcephaly.
Perhaps most concerning, we find that current approaches to combating misinformation and conspiracy theories about disease epidemics and outbreaks may be ineffective or even counterproductive. In separate experiments in 2017 and 2018, we found that a myths correction message fails to reduce overall belief in the Zika-related misperceptions it targeted. This failure was widespread and occurred among respondents with both high and low motivation to endorse conspiracies. We also found unexpected evidence that the myths correction approach causes collateral damage by reducing belief in other factual claims about Zika that are actually true. The myths correction treatment significantly reduced the perceived accuracy of 7 of 13 factual claims tested in the 2017 and 2018 experiments that were not targeted by the myths correction treatment. In particular, belief in six of nine scientifically accurate facts that we tested declined significantly.
In a separate experiment conducted in 2018 on beliefs related to yellow fever, a myths correction treatment was more effective, decreasing false beliefs overall and for two of three misperceptions that the message debunked. This treatment also inflicted less collateral damage on the accuracy of people’s beliefs about the outbreak than the one used in the Zika experiments.
One potential explanation for these differing results is that general knowledge about yellow fever is better established among Brazilians. The disease has been present in the Americas for over a century and has been a longstanding target of public health efforts. By contrast, Zika’s first confirmed case in Brazil occurred in 2015. As such, Zika-related beliefs may be less firmly rooted and more vulnerable to spillover effects. This interpretation suggests that the risk of corrective information reducing the accuracy of other disease-related beliefs is lower in situations where baseline knowledge is well established (as with yellow fever in Brazil). By contrast, where public knowledge is less firm, as with Zika (and perhaps other recent epidemics like Ebola), the risk of collateral damage from corrective information to other knowledge may be higher. This distinction is consistent with the differing results from our yellow fever and Zika experiments, but should be tested further in future research, including other contexts besides Brazil.
Our research does have limitations. First, it is possible that social desirability concerns affected responses to our survey measures of misperception belief. We sought to reduce these concerns by avoiding the use of potentially stigmatizing language and conducting our experiment online. Moreover, our findings are not obviously consistent with such an account. Most notably, we found widespread expression of conspiracy belief in our face-to-face survey, where social desirability pressures are likely to be greatest. Nonetheless, future research should consider using experimental designs intended to test for such effects. Second, the linkage between factual beliefs and public policy attitudes is complex and should be explored further. Other values or considerations may be more important determinants of opinion toward policies intended to reduce the spread of Zika and yellow fever. Third, it would be desirable to verify that our experimental results replicate among a representative sample of Brazilians. Last, future research should test whether these results vary with different information sources or formats. We chose not to test such variations because they could reduce our power to detect main effects and also potentially induce heterogeneous treatment effects based on source trust and literacy that are even more difficult to test with appropriate statistical power. Still, source and information format effects should be investigated further in this context.
Despite these limitations, we contribute to the broader literature on misperceptions and conspiracy theory belief in two important respects. First, our findings echo other research showing that efforts to warn people about the presence of false information can have unexpected spillover effects on their belief in other claims (26, 37). In particular, a general warning about the presence of fake news has been found to decrease belief in the accuracy of both false and legitimate news headlines (26). Second, these findings demonstrate further evidence that providing accurate factual information does not always have the expected effect on public support for related policies or leaders (21).
The knowledge spillover effects we find underscore the need for further randomized controlled trials testing the effects of health messages on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Although the Zika epidemic has ended, the study of misperceptions and how to address them has implications for numerous regions and diseases around the world. To prepare for future disease outbreaks, we must know more about the prevalence of conspiracy theories and misperceptions, which types of citizens endorse them, and how to effectively combat them.
Until more is known, however, public health professionals should have realistic expectations about the effectiveness of efforts to provide corrective information during disease outbreaks. It may be more effective to instead pursue alternative strategies that do not involve direct debunking such as educational programs to encourage parents and children to engage with public health information (38), participatory approaches that enlist local medical practitioners to disseminate information about disease vectors (39), and encouragement of publicly visible prevention and protection measures that might encourage emulation through peer pressure (40). In some cases, the best way to defeat misperceptions may be to avoid challenging them directly.

Here’s What to Know About the COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

The COVID-19 vaccine is here and doses are beginning to roll out across the country and the world. It’ll take several months for inoculations to reach everyone based on current distribution plans but reactions to the vaccine will be followed closely, including side effects.
Having some side effects from receiving a vaccine isn’t unusual. For example, it’s not unusual for some people to experience mild side effects like headaches, muscle aches and soreness after receiving their annual flu shot.
Because of the speed with which it was developed and because it’s a new vaccine, though, some have expressed concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine, specifically its side effects. We talked to critical care specialist Rachel Scheraga, MD, about those side effects, what causes them and why the vaccine is safe.
The vaccines
Currently, two vaccines have been given the green light for distribution: one developed by Pfizer, in conjunction with BioNTech, and one developed by Moderna. Both were found to be about 95% effective during trials.
Neither vaccine has been fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which would allow the vaccines to be sold to hospitals and health care providers. But both have been approved for emergency use authorization (EUA) by the FDA because of the current state of emergency (the ongoing pandemic).
But it’s still important to keep in mind that we’re still in the early stages of the process. With those EUA come tons of data – data that will continue to be collected as doses are distributed – that prove these vaccines are both safe and effective. And that includes side effects of the vaccines.
What are the known side effects of the vaccines?
As with many vaccines, there are some side effects but, says Dr. Scheraga, those side effects are relatively mild.
“The side effects have mainly been arm soreness, fatigue, muscle aches, headaches and some instances of fever and chills,” she notes. She adds that between the two different vaccines the side effects are effectively the same.
She also says that the side effects are more commonly felt after the second dose rather than after the first. With the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, the second dose will come 21 days after the first while the second Moderna dose occurs 28 days later. “The data from the trials of the vaccines show that the side effects were more common after the second dose,” she says.
So far, no additional widespread side effects have become known but, again, it’s still early in the process, she points out. As these trials continue, the companies and health care providers will be on the lookout for anything else.
What causes these side effects?
According to Dr. Scheraga, the side effects have to do with how the COVID-19 vaccine works. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines use the “messenger RNA” (or mRNA) approach. The strategy has been in development for years but this is the first time it’s been used in a distributed vaccine.
In this case, the harmless “spike” protein of the virus in the mRNA vaccine triggers the secretion of antibodies and recruitment of memory immune cells in the bloodstream that will allow for protection if one gets infected with the virus at a later time, Dr. Scheraga says.
“This activation of the immune system is what leads to some of these non-specific symptoms,” she adds.
Do the vaccine side effects mimic COVID-19 symptoms?
Dr. Scheraga notes that there are some overlapping features between the side effects and the symptoms of COVID-19. “Specifically, the fever and the muscle aches are some of the general side effects that mirror COVID-19 symptoms,” she says.
It’s important to keep an eye on the side effects you experience because, as she says, it’s possible that these symptoms could be a result of COVID-19. “It’s possible that if you contract the virus a few days before you receive your first dose, those symptoms could be indicative of COVID-19 infection instead of vaccine side effects.”
But, she adds, there are a few ways to tell if it’s just the side effects or something more serious. “Most times,” she says, “the side effects are mild and usually fade within 24 hours. You shouldn’t feel prolonged effects from the vaccine itself.”
Everyone’s reaction will be on a case-by-case basis, she says. “If you find those symptoms worsening or lingering longer than a day or two, you should contact your healthcare provider. They’ll be able to direct you on the best next steps, including, potentially, a COVID-19 test.”
No, you can’t get COVID-19 from the vaccine
“The COVID-19 vaccine will not give you COVID-19,” Dr. Scheraga says. “You’re just getting a sequence of the protein spike of the virus. You’re not getting either an active or inactive part of the virus.”
She adds, “You’re just getting what is needed from the virus so your immune cells can develop memory so that if you do contract COVID-19 after full vaccination, your immune system will be able to fight it off quickly so you don’t get sick.”
Are there any pre-existing medical conditions that could interfere with or intensify the side effects?
One question about the vaccine has been whether or not pregnant patients would experience any additional adverse reactions. So far, that’s unknown because, as Dr. Scheraga says, “The initial clinical trials didn’t include pregnant recipients so they’re still investigating whether or not they can safely receive the vaccine.”
Recent guidance developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises that if a pregnant patient is part of a group recommended to receive the vaccine, that patient would have the ultimate choice with the recommendation they consult their health care provider.
As with other vaccines, like a flu shot, the health care provider administering the vaccine will check with each recipient if they’ve experienced allergies with previous vaccines. Specifically, those reactions are generally caused by additives in the vaccine.
“Once you receive a dose, you’ll be monitored for 15 minutes which is typically enough time to see any indication of a severe allergic reaction,” Dr. Scheraga points out.
As of now, the CDC says that patients with a history of such reactions can receive the vaccine but they should have those incidents fully assessed by a health care provider to determine a fuller context around those incidents.
The CDC says, “These persons may still receive vaccination, but they should be counseled about the unknown risks of developing a severe allergic reaction and balance these risks against the benefits of vaccination.”
In those instances, the CDC calls for a post-vaccination observation period of 30 minutes instead of 15 minutes.
Are the vaccines safe?
Ultimately, the bottom line is that, yes, says Dr. Scheraga, the COVID-19 vaccines are safe. She explains the mRNA platform has been a big advance in technology that was developed and worked on prior to the pandemic.
“There’s a lot of concern because of the speed of development and it’s a brand new platform,” she says, “but it’s not brand new technology. This platform has been under development for this kind of real-time distribution for a while.”
A great deal of experimentation had already taken place, she notes, so that when the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, it was a well-tested platform ready for implementation: “It’s safe, effective and potentially life-changing.”

Acknowledgments: We thank S. Clifford, T. Lahey, N. Lee, A. Ozer, B. Simas, and participants in seminars at Harvard University, the Political Misperceptions Conference at the University of Houston, and the Evidence in Governance and Politics conference at Yale University for helpful comments; C. D. L. E. Silva for translation assistance; J. Davidson, J. Fidalgo, E. Morgan, and M. Sandhu for research assistance; and M. J. Cohen and E. Zechmeister of the Latin American Public Opinion Project for assistance with the administration of our AmericasBarometer survey module. Funding: This study was supported by the Decision, Risk and Management Sciences program at the NSF (award 1659128) and the Global Health Initiative of the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth College. Author contributions: All authors designed the study and wrote the original manuscript. J.M.C., B.N., and T.Z. revised the manuscript. B.N. and D.J.F. analyzed the data. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Data and materials availability: All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials. Replication data and Stata code for all our findings will be made available upon publication in the Dataverse archive with the identifier ( Additional data related to this paper may be requested from the authors.
• Copyright © 2020 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC).


It was our practice We used our pants shirts and sari and skirt etc to cover our bodies but time comes we have to regularly use our mask as usual our daily uses dress.we people hate each other we creted distance peoples each other by color. By race by good bad and ugly. Sometimes husband keeps distances from wifes and wifes make distance husbands but now GOD makes you people distances by marching corona. Now if you are going a road , you found two way to go your destinations. Suddenly you see a dangerous snake is coming one way and other way coming a man or women with mask or without mask. Which way you like to select to go? But my suggestions go that way where sanake is coming. Now we are each other danger than snake.

A virus is a submicroscopic infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of an organism. Viruses infect all types of life forms, from animals and plants to microorganisms, including bacteria and archaea. Since Dmitri Ivanovsky’s 1892 article describing a non-bacterial pathogen infecting tobacco plants and the discovery of the tobacco mosaic virus by Martinus Beijerinck in 1898, more than 6,000 virus species have been described in detail of the millions of types of viruses in the environment. Viruses are found in almost every ecosystem on Earth and are the most numerous type of biological entity. The study of viruses is known as virology, a subspeciality of microbiology.

Coronaviruses are a group of related RNA viruses that cause diseases in mammals and birds. In humans and birds, they cause respiratory tract infections that can range from mild to lethal. Mild illnesses in humans include some cases of the common cold, while more lethal varieties can cause SARS, MERS,

they cause hepatitis and encephalomyelitis.
Beach is a smart place to meet people close to close with half naked , almost showing every parts of body .at last authority understood and close this naked show business.

Peole changes that were not planned .many of the changes that people have made in the environment have been made by accident as people have tried to do one helpflthings for themselves, it seems that they have caused problems as well. The following examples might help explain how some problems caused.
Procupines and oyther smoll animals .pine trease and other trees and large minklike animals known as fishers live one time ,most of this areas was covered by great stands of pine trees but porcupines damaged many of young pine trees by chewing on them.fishers used to keep the porcupine populations under control by preying on porcupines but people began trapping fishers to obtain their fur for use in making coats .as the fishers population decreased , the population of porcupines increased you can imagine the porcupines soon caused a great deal of dameges to the young pine trees..
The world is going to destroy both religious leaders and scientists say the same thing that this is direct proportion. People will be more powerful and a lot of wonderful things will be discovered. Even people can digest their own disease and will take preventive action. Just when they will come by this magic mirror, they will find which body is affected like now we measure a lot of other staffs. Medical Sciences will develop but some religious leaders said King Dajjal is coming to save the world. Mehedi will come to save the world and Jesus will come to save the world. Scientists said something miraculous will come from another planet and the world will get destroyed. Somebody said war will begin for money and ethic matters. The Latest final wars will be ethical for religion. Now I want to say different things. This is very important for all people. We are living during the latest time about corona and some religious leaders say this is the last time, people start disobeying Almighty god. Continiously doing all bad things such as crimes robbery brief, rape, killing people and so on. Prostitutes increase all over the world. This is against God’s rules. As God destroyed the people of Prophet Hud, Prophet Noha, Prophet Luts time. That’s why God sent this coronavirus as God sent mosquitoes to destroy Namrud. As God sent birds to destroy king Abraham´s kingdom and many others was by God to human civilization. Now people understand pompeii was destroyed by God because they all were prostitutes. So now because of our crimes, God sent a non visible coronavirus. It’s best to be ready because there will come more dangerous things. It is behold our knowledge so be careful dear human beings

As days pass, coronavirus becomes more powerful even though vaccines have been discovered, there are still no countries in control. Everyday a lot of people are dying.
Available survey data confirm that public health messaging associated with the COVID-19 virus is getting through. People are paying attention, and the public is generally taking the actions recommended by authorities.
According to Gallup data, it shows that 93% of Americans are following the COVID-19 crisis very or somewhat closely, including 66% who are following it very closely. The level of close attention being paid to the virus is second highest on the list of 230 news stories it has tested since 1991, behind only 9/11.
As I previously discussed, other polls show similarly high levels of attention being paid, including the fact that 99% of Americans microbiologist said they had read, seen or heard about the New data from the test knowledge of virus-related issues and show a high level of understanding. Most people can accurately answer questions about the availability of a vaccine, how people get the virus, how to avoid getting the virus, symptoms of the virus and who has the highest risk.
The degree to which the virus has captured the public’s consciousness. Some 57% of respondents now name the virus when peoples are asked to identify the biggest concern facing their family right now, and many of the other concerns named are related to the potential impact of the virus — including job security and unemployment, paying everyday bills, the economy and healthcare costs.

Under electron microscope 2019 –nCov isolated from a patient in the surface at cells blue /pink culture, this is more dangerous than the covid-19. It can contaminate any body parts to any body parts by touching. After determination of coved positive or negative then you can be sure even you are not allow touch husband and wife each other. Identification: you looks like you no any symptom but you are affected, so be careful. This type virus now in everywhere.
New survey data also confirm that peoples- in many cases nearly all peoples of the world- are heeding public health advice.
As per microbiologist’ social distancing practices shows the public has quickly ramped up their adherence to government recommendations. The result is that about nine in 10 Americans now say they have avoided crowds and are avoiding traveling by airplane, bus, subway or train (of course, a lot of people didn’t do these things before the virus either). Two thirds or more have avoided small gatherings, avoided going to public places and canceled travel plans and about six in 10 have stocked up on food or supplies.
All of these are up from just a week ago, and the dynamic upward curve in reports of engaging in these activities over just a week or so in how quickly the authorities’ recommendations are being heeded. most recent data tracked through March 22 also show significantly higher levels of avoidance activities than even lot of activist stop their thinking and help people
Given that public health messaging about the virus is evidently getting through to the average worlds peoples a key question becomes just how the public is processing that information and what conclusions they reach about it.
So far, concerns and worries about the virus are in what I would call a mid-level range. Our latest update shows that 24% of world people are very worried that they or someone in their family will be exposed to the coronavirus, with another 39% somewhat worried. Some religious people say it comes from Almighty God. Notably, this didn’t change much between March readings, and despite the exponential increase of world cases since last month, is up only modestly from February.
Some people are quite similar, showing about six in 10 people are very or somewhat worried that they or someone in their family will get sick because of the virus. Some microbiologist trend, just 27% are very worried, up only five percentage points who care policy
According to Gallup data, results show 70% of people are very or somewhat concerned that they, or someone in their family, will become seriously ill from the coronavirus outbreak — with 38% very concerned no trend
The key numbers here may be the percentage of people who classify themselves as “very” worried or “very” concerned across surveys. Those numbers, as we have seen, are in the 24% to 38% range, well below majority level.
Along these same lines, reports suggest that the majority of people have not seen their lives upended by the virus crisis shows that 30% say their life has been affected or disrupted a great deal, with expert 36% a fair amount. This is a fairly low bar, of course, since being “affected” could be in quite mild ways. Kaiser data from a bit earlier asked more directly how much peoples lives have “been disrupted by the coronavirus outbreak” and found a relatively low 16% saying “a lot,” with another 24% saying “some.”
Looking ahead, 36% of people say the situation will begin to improve within a few weeks, while a majority, 51%, say it will be a few months before it begins to improve.

The most recent and data from other organizations — confirm the emerging consensus that hospitals, government health agencies have the highest levels of the people’s trust. The news media are at the bottom of most lists.
It’s important to reiterate that state and local governments have historically been more positively evaluated microbiologists than all countries’ governments. Everything else being equal, then, we would expect that states will be more trusted than the feds. That has certainly been the case so far.
Clearly, the public remains relatively skeptical of the news media. survey shows that only 44% approve of the way the media are handling the situation, the lowest rating of the nine people and entities tested. Monmouth asked about “the media reporting about the outbreak” and found 45% saying they were doing a good job.
Some people are significantly less favorable than their views of government officials and health agencies, but the 60% who approve of Trump’s handling of the situation is in clear majority territory 50% saying is doing a good job). Government efforts to pass a legislative stimulus package at the time of the most recent update may explain why evaluations of that body are relatively positive, with a 59% approval rating for its handling of the situation, on par with someone specially.
What about government image overall? Our shows person’s job approval rating returning to the 49% level we measured in January and February. approval is up modestly among independents and political persons (and, as my colleague microbiologist says in his analysis, this is “highly unusual for any person
The latest has one political leader overall approval up by two points, now by a small margin at the highest in government history in that meeting each other
Satisfaction with the way things are going shows a mild uptick in the situations, which fits with a modest rally effect scenario.
It’s way too early to know what effect this crisis will have on the 2020 presidential election. Much will depend on the trajectory of peoples ‘ perceptions of essentially out of the news as the COVID-19 crisis rolls on. A glance at news shows little focus on the virus, other than one box linked to his plan for handing it.
In my last update, I hypothesized that the substantial partisan gap in attitudes about the COVID-19 virus could narrow. So far, however, I see no significant sign of a diminished polarization.
Most recent data on worry about virus exposure show a 27-point gap — 48% of leaning independents are very or somewhat worried, compared with 75% of This is essentially the same size gap people saw in data earlier in March.
Republicans are more likely than Democrats to approve of U.S. hospitals, government health agencies and Congress, and, of course, Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. Democrats are more positive about the news media, and the two partisan groups are equal in their (very positive) approval of their state governments.
Kaiser Family Foundation’s latest poll shows a continuing partisan gap, and their conclusion is worth noting: “Across many questions, the poll finds significant partisan differences, with Democrats generally more worried about the health and economic consequences and more likely to take specific actions in response.”
There may be underlying geographic reasons for the partisan gap in addition to the positioning cues given off by peoples are harder hit than red states.
Crises and events like this one often follow a predictable pattern: Initial public acceptance and then increased questioning and pushback. We are beginning to see the second phase now, as questions arise about the dramatic “horizontal” strategy of putting everyone on lockdown and peoples suffering increases
Like much else in life, this can come down to a tradeoff — in this instance, between an emphasis on slowing down the spread of the virus at all costs versus an emphasis on maintaining employment and a viable from earlier this month showed that people’s confidence in the economy was beginning to slide. data show an overwhelming 87% of people say it is somewhat or very likely that the virus will cause an economic recession in the including 52% who say it’s very likely. Concern about the virus significantly harming one’s personal financial situation is not as widespread, but 35% say this worst case scenario is very likely, with another 32% saying it’s somewhat likely.
The tradeoff between attempting to stop the virus at any cost and recognizing that the economy (and people’s livelihoods) must go on at the same time is extremely challenging. Data showing peoples are vitally concerned about both sides of this equation underscore the need for informed and rational public leadership to juggle the emphasis given to these two critical national priorities. When people suffer, nobody still understands that there is no government in the world. Government will solve problems but governments have their own problems which is how to catch power.





Yet again, the world is experiencing a global viral epidemic of zoonotic origin. As of Feb 12, 45 204 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 1116 deaths had been reported in 25 countries. The majority of cases and, at the time of writing, all but one death have been in China, despite efforts in the country to halt transmission through shutting down transport, quarantining entire cities, and enforcing the use of face masks. International flights have been cancelled and affected cruise ships quarantined. At this stage, it is unclear whether the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2 outbreak will run its course, as SARS-CoV did in 2003, or will become an endemic cause of viral pneumonia.
In our January issue we announced the formation of The Lancet Infectious Diseases Commission on Preparedness for Emerging Epidemic Threats. The Commission will revisit global preparedness planning and assumptions underlying agreements such as the International Health Regulations. It aims to account for new challenges in preparing for and responding to infectious disease outbreaks. These challenges, which are political and institutional, social, environmental, technological, and pathogen-related, are being brought to the foreground by the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.
One issue is how prepared the world’s health systems are to respond to an outbreak of this scale. It’s clear the large number of cases of COVID-19 is testing the health system in China. Yet, China was able to build a hospital for affected patients in a matter of days. No other country could mobilise resources and manpower at such speed. While health systems in high-income countries would be stretched by the outbreak, the most devastating effects would be in countries with weak health systems, ongoing conflicts, or existing infectious disease epidemics. In these countries, it is imperative to rapidly detect and contain the virus at points of entry to prevent community transmission and health systems from being overwhelmed. Health authorities in Africa are on high alert for the virus, given the continent’s extensive trade and transport links with Asia. The capacity in Africa to screen, isolate, and treat patients and perform contact tracing is being built under the leadership of the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and WHO.
As in all outbreaks, there is an urgent need to develop effective diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Several experimental diagnostic platforms are already in use in China and elsewhere. The whole-genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 had been obtained and shared widely by mid-January, a feat not possible at such speed in previous infectious disease outbreaks. This sequence will allow fine-tuning of existing technologies and development of better diagnostics and targeted therapeutics. Several potential treatments have been proposed, including a Janus kinase inibitor known as baricitinib. However, no HOLJPHOJPHOJ0antiviral treatment has been approved for coronaviruses, and despite two outbreaks of novel coronaviruses in the past two decades, vaccine development is still in its infancy. WHO has announced that a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 should be available in 18 months, but achieving this will require funding and public interest to be maintained even if the threat level falls.
Social media and sensationalist reporting are challenging outbreak response efforts. Misinformation and conspiracy theories spread on social media have generated panic and mistrust among the general public, diverted attention away from the outbreak response, and impeded the activities of health-care workers. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said WHO is tackling the spread of false information with a “four-pronged approach”, including using its WHO Information Network for Epidemics platform to track misinformation in multiple languages and collaborating with social and digital companies such as Facebook, Weibo, and Twitter to filter out false information.
How prepared the world was for the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak will surely be discussed in its aftermath. The initial response in China to contain the virus was applauded by WHO and considered much improved compared with its response to the 2003 SARS-CoV epidemic. Internationally, we have seen rapid generation and sharing of knowledge to the benefit of the outbreak response, but also counterproductive actions by some countries, including limiting trade and shutting of borders, to its detriment. With the increasing frequency of zoonotic spillovers leading to human infections and transmission, it’s apparent that pandemic preparedness has become a priority for the global health agenda.
As we know at one time most of the worlds rivers and streams were filled with clear clean water, as forests are cut down. However erosion washes millions of tons of mud into waterways. In addition , people into waterways , the oxygen in the water is used by the decomposers in the water to break this material down. But this cuts down the amount of oxygen available tp other organisams I the water. Without enough oxygen ,fish and other organisams in the water soon die,

And as aresults virus came to our door. So STOP? .
Solutions projects to save our environment poisonous pathogens free microorganisams and viruses or specially corona virus . if environment houses roards inside and outside are clean properly and allow to grows trees every ench of unused lands we can solve thousands of diseases that people would be protected .P-0-0
Government shoud take following projects stop spread infectious pathogens:
Here is some possible solutions:
a major problems facing the world today is ho to grow enough food without harming the environment .in order to have enough food, people have to find a way to protect foodcrops from pests . insecticides and other chemicals are not the answer because they often harm other life.for tis reason scientists have been trying the develop other ways of controlling insects pests/.possibly the best means of control is biologic control biologic control involves the the use of natural hoemones to control insects reproduction . hormonesmay also be used to change the time that insects undergo matamprphosis or theway they undergo it. Biologists have also found that certain viruses and bacteria can be used to attack insects methods such as thesedo not make permanent chamges in natural cycles or in the food webs of theenvironment.
Another solutions to the food problems mught be found in locating new sources of food . chemists and biologist are working together to see if petroleum can be used to produce food, they have found that certain bacteruia grow well and reproduce rapidly using petroleum as food. .it may be possible to harvest these bacteria and use them as a rich source of proten and vitamins.
Using natural resources wisely is another wisely is another possible solutions to some environmental problems.this solutions is known as conservations . in short , practicing conservations means means that people must learn to take care of what natural resources there are .for example,.one way of practicing conservations would be to get the maximum benefit from every tree that is cut down ..that is nothing from a tree should be wasted . another way of practicing conservation would be recycling used materials instead of siscarding them. For example scientistscould try tofind ways to use thewastes from one industry to supply some of the needed materials for other industries.people must not assume that when resources such as trees , riversparks and wildlife are gone . more will appeard to take their place.people must begin to understand that each time products such as cars clothes toothbrushes and makeup are produced , energy and natural resources are used up.

Some peoples think that findings new foodsources ,finding new energy sources and practicing conservations are not enough . they feel that these are only partial solutions these people feel that the best solutions is to reduce the number of people born each year .but it is not good , God created human and allother things that we are enjoying with out money such air and everybody born with their fate.some one prine and some one poor baby but all are God wishes to balance the world and populations . however , most people react strongly to populations controls. The issue of populations control is often affected by a persons cultural and religious beliefs and values.
Dearreaders and ladies and gentleman, at the present time many questions and problems remain unsolved and unanswered . how the balance of the natural systems of the environments ? how much can the environments be changed by people without damaging the balance of the natural systems of the environments ? how many people can the world really support? Where will people get the energy that they need? Can people really change their attitudes and values about the environment ? questions like tese must be answered in the near future . I hope the answer to theaseproblems and questionswill greatly affect your environment and environment free from hunger. Diseases ,and infectious dises like corona virus and control environmemne and it will be aumatically control Covid -19 or more than that.and we are people will be safe at safe environment. Where we will get continuously fresh oxygen with out any microbes in air.
We have to take following projects to make our environment free from germ or infectious diseases.
Project number 1. If there are 3 hectore of land for each person in the world. people be concerned about good land use

Project no 2.people worried about futuresources of energy.
Project no 3.values and attitudes affect possible solutions to problems of the environment.
Project no to the problems with the environment.
Project no 5.we know early people and also now . we know that the every human first began makin important changes in the environment after they began to form vcommunities . some changes they made were cutting down forests,damming rivers and killing animals that competed for space and food but people did not repay to the environment what they have taken from environment . they did not make proper place for birds ,animals ,etc and they only things themselves . that’s why now we are suffering because of us the infectious process developed and infections increasing day by day every times new bacteria , fungus and virus growing thousands and millions that even we don’t kbnow what to be named them what family they belog they are growing and we are suffering and only suffering new drung new prescriptions every things is costly ,somewhere people dyingwithout food and covid broke out to destroy us.
Project no 6.changes in the environments that were not planned were caused by trapping animals by using pesticides and by introduxcing grazing animals to certain areasn .thats why need project to control thisexisting procedures.
Project no 7.greater numbers of peoples put greater demands on the worlds resources of food , air ,water and and energy .so neeed proper plant to control andto solve this problems.
Project no 8 need some renewable resources such as food and water are in such great demands that some shortages may occur as the worlds populations continues to increases.because of covid , may be very soon food crises will broke out in our planet because agricultural productions closed no actual supply , people worried to go work and worried to outside so industry are closed food processing and making industry bread industry practically closed . so food crises knocking at the door speciall poor country like Bangladesh .still today lot of people not have a dollars income .only may be ALMIGHTY ALLLAH helping these poor people to government should make plan for incoming food crises.otherwise people immune system weekend and people will die due to corona.
Projects 9. And technology has been responsible for the appearance of new products so quaoty products is important to safe our people I know the prime minister sheikh hasina trying hrd to develop medical facilities to all over the country and she tried hard to solve number of diseases control programs and specially she has done tremendous work to present corona problems .so peoples of Bangladesh living under the covid free atmosphere. Her attitude to biolo control finding new sources hygienic sanitary practicing and controlling the growth of the corona virus and other infectious pathogens.
In conclusions . I like to say the recombuinent DNA is it necessary and very important task to control covid –problems instead of we know . all organisams carrt information that they pass on the next generations . the informations is carried on the chromosomoses by units called genes. The genes are made of molecules called DNA . each specific organisams has its own specific genes and DNA
Recently scientists have found that the DNA of certain organisams can be DNA of one organisams can be joined with another. This creates an organisams that contains the DNA of both organisams .the DNA of the new organisams is called recombinant DNA .if we can developrecommminent system we can make our booy petfect even the no need to take any vaccine but hopefull we are scientist trying hard to solve this problems categorically as categorric;y araged our DNA .
AUTHOR ; DR. S.I.SHELLEY is a out standing microbiologist and virologist and immunologist. Educated fromformer USSR academy of sciences and biotechnology from Canada mcgill university.’he published many articles regarding immunosystem andinfectious dises.hehe is 25 years experiences in microbiology and attendd many country for scienceandsociety conferences,and recived invitation and travel grant from netherland, belzium, france, England, germany Robert kikke institute, nether land s the of anton ven lven hook the father of animal culle microbilogu microcopist. Former Aussr. Philiphpine, japa , Singapore, thiland Bangladesh .india ,pakistan nepal, USA and Canada, dubai kuewaet. Saudia araBIA , Egypt. Kenya, Nigeria .etc .at present he is living in USA..Noe he is working in usa as principal scientist of the winder labs.
You never know when you were attack by covid , sometime corona virus symtoms to focus but its appers be alert and check and test time to times.

Author: Dr.Sherajuli Shelley Assistant Manager) D. MRSB. Candidate: Fellow of Royal Society Biology of the United Kingdom. Bactolac Pharmaceutical Accuon Labs Inc , NY. USA winder labs Winder labs.



Leave a Reply