Background China is at the forefront of global efforts to develop COVID-19 vaccines and has five fast-tracked candidates at the final-stage, large-scale human clinical trials testing phase. Vaccine-promoting policymaking for public engagement is a prerequisite for social mobilization. However, making an informed and judicious choice is a dilemma for the Chinese government in the vaccine promotion context. Objective In this study, public opinions in China were analyzed via dialogues on Chinese social media, based on which Chinese netizens’ views on COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination were investigated. We also aimed to develop strategies for promoting vaccination programs in China based on an in-depth understanding of the challenges in risk communication and social mobilization. Methods We proposed a novel behavioral dynamics model, SRS/I (susceptible-reading-susceptible/immune), to analyze opinion transmission paradigms on Chinese social media. Coupled with a meta-analysis and natural language processing techniques, the emotion polarity of individual opinions was examined in their given context. Results We collected more than 1.75 million Weibo messages about COVID-19 vaccines from January to October 2020. According to the public opinion reproduction ratio (R0), the dynamic propagation of those messages can be classified into three periods: the ferment period (R01=1.1360), the revolution period (R02=2.8278), and the transmission period (R03=3.0729). Topics on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in China include price and side effects. From September to October, Weibo users claimed that the vaccine was overpriced, making up 18.3% (n=899) of messages; 38.1% (n=81,909) of relevant topics on Weibo received likes. On the contrary, the number of messages that considered the vaccine to be reasonably priced was twice as high but received fewer likes, accounting for 25.0% (n=53,693). In addition, we obtained 441 (47.7%) positive and 295 (31.9%) negative Weibo messages about side effects. Interestingly, inactivated vaccines instigated more heated discussions than any other vaccine type. The discussions, forwards, comments, and likes associated with topics related to inactivated vaccines accounted for 53% (n=588), 42% (n=3072), 56% (n=3671), and 49% (n=17,940), respectively, of the total activity associated with the five types of vaccines in China. Conclusions Most Chinese netizens believe that the vaccine is less expensive than previously thought, while some claim they cannot afford it for their entire family. The findings demonstrate that Chinese individuals are inclined to be positive about side effects over time and are proud of China’s involvement with vaccine development. Nevertheless, they have a collective misunderstanding about inactivated vaccines, insisting that inactivated vaccines are safer than other vaccines. Reflecting on netizens’ collective responses, the unfolding determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance provide illuminating benchmarks for vaccine-promoting policies.

Background In the context of the COVID-19 infodemic, the global profusion of monikers and hashtags for COVID-19 have found their way into daily communication and contributed to a backlash against China and the Chinese people. Objective This study examines public engagement in crisis communication about COVID-19 during the early epidemic stage and the practical strategy of social mobilization to mitigate the infodemic. Methods We retrieved the unbiased values of the top-ranked search phrases between December 30, 2019, and July 15, 2020, which normalized the anonymized, categorized, and aggregated samples from Google Search data. This study illustrates the most-searched terms, including the official COVID-19 terms, the stigmatized terms, and other controls, to measure the collective behavioral propensities to stigmatized terms and to explore the global reaction to the COVID-19 epidemic in the real world. We calculated the ratio of the cumulative number of COVID-19 cases to the regional population as the cumulative rate (R) of a specific country or territory and calculated the Gini coefficient (G) to measure the collective heterogeneity of crowd behavior. Results People around the world are using stigmatizing terms on Google Search, and these terms were used earlier than the official names. Many stigmatized monikers against China (eg, “Wuhan pneumonia,” G=0.73; “Wuhan coronavirus,” G=0.60; “China pneumonia,” G=0.59; “China coronavirus,” G=0.52; “Chinese coronavirus,” G=0.50) had high collective heterogeneity of crowd behavior between December 30, 2019, and July 15, 2020, while the official terms “COVID-19” (G=0.44) and “SARS-CoV-2” (G=0.42) have not become de facto standard usages. Moreover, the pattern of high consistent usage was observed in 13 territories with low cumulative rates (R) between January 16 and July 15, 2020, out of 58 countries and territories that have reported confirmed cases of COVID-19. In the scientific literature, multifarious naming practices may have provoked unintended negative impacts by stigmatizing Chinese people. The World Health Organization; the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; and the media initiated campaigns for fighting back against the COVID-19 infodemic with the same mission but in diverse voices. Conclusions Infodemiological analysis can articulate the collective propensities to stigmatized monikers across search behaviors, which may reflect the collective sentiment of backlash against China and Chinese people in the real world. The full-fledged official terms are expected to fight back against the resilience of negative perceptual bias amid the COVID-19 epidemic. Such official naming efforts against the infodemic should be met with a fair share of identification in scientific conventions and sociocultural paradigms. As an integral component of preparedness, appropriate nomenclatures should be duly assigned to the newly identified coronavirus, and social mobilization in a uniform voice is a priority for combating the next infodemic.

No abstract

Less aligned emphasis has been given to the COVID-19 infodemic coordinating with the COVID-19 outbreak. Global profusion of tangled monikers and hashtags has found their ways in daily communication and contributed to backlash against Chinese. Official naming efforts against infodemic should be meet with a fair share of identification. Based on brief critical reviews on previous multifarious naming practices, we punctuate heuristic introspection in scientific conventions and sociocultural paradigms. Infodemiological analysis promises to articulate that people around the globe are divided in their favor stigmatized monikers in the public and scientific communities because of perceptual bias. There is no positive correlation between the degree of infection in their territories and collective perceptual bias to COVID-19. The official portfolio “COVID-19” and “SARS-CoV-2” has not become de facto standard usages, but full-fledged official names are excepted to duly contribute to the resilience of negative perceptual bias and collective behavioral propensities.