BACKGROUND
In the absence of a vaccine or curative treatment, non-pharmaceutical
interventions regimes have been implemented by governments around the world, to slow
the spread of COVID-19. The success of these NPIs has varied between countries and is
likely to relate to the degree of uptake and adherence by the community. Understanding
public attitudes towards these NPI regimes and the factors that promote public
understanding and support for them would provide valuable insight to governments
seeking to encourage acceptance of and adherence to these interventions. The analysis of
social media offers the opportunity to retrieve these insights.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this paper is to describe and compare the public Twitter-
based discussion of NPIs implemented during the first four months of the COVID-19
pandemic, across six anglophone countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Republic of
Ireland, United Kingdom, and United States). The aim was to determine which NPIs
received support from the public and whether there were identifiable elements of public
discourse that offered meaningful insight into potential enablers and barriers to
community adherence.
METHODS
We collected 2.5 million tweets related to the COVID-19 pandemic across six
countries. These tweets were posted between January 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020.
Tweets underwent intensive pre-processing, resulting in the inclusion of 787,691 tweets
deemed fit for analysis. A hybrid methodology integrating computational and qualitative
analysis was adopted in this study, where the topic model MetaLDA was used to
construct topics document sets which were coded and qualitatively analyzed. A total of 94 topics relating to NPIs were identified. A comparative analysis of the public views of NPIs between countries was then conducted. Visualizations and quantitative analysis
supported this.
RESULTS
Our comparison of public discussion of NPIs showed that hand-hygiene was
encouraged, and quickly adopted and across all countries surveyed.
The spectrum of NPIs aimed at social-distancing required a period of adjustment before
being broadly accepted, although, stay-at-home orders were called for in many cases
before governments implemented these NPIs. There was contrasting public reaction to
restrictions on travel and the closure of businesses. Countries, such as New Zealand,
where restrictions were implemented early, showed broad community support and intent
to comply. In other countries, such as Canada and the US, there was protracted debate
over such restrictions and support for adherence was not as easily interpreted.
CONCLUSIONS
Attitudes indicative of lowered community adherence to NPIs appear to be
rooted in both the complexity of the imposed regime, and the corresponding lack of
understanding of the regime in the community. Our study supports the hypothesis that
public understanding and responsiveness is supported by consistency, clarity and
timeliness of government messaging regarding NPI directives.