4.2 Article

Public Opinions and Conspiracy Thinking Toward the COVID-19 Outbreak in Iraqi Kurdistan

Journal

DISASTER MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS
Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 1322-1325

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/dmp.2020.490

Keywords

COVID-19 outbreak; conspiracy thinking; belief

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explores the public's perceptions towards the COVID-19 crisis in Iraqi Kurdistan, finding that a considerable number of people hold conspiracy theories about the outbreak and have negative views towards the government's response.
Objective: The public's perceptions toward the COVID-19 crisis and the government's attempts to handle the crisis are critically noteworthy. The public opinions toward the COVID-19 crisis were explored in this study. Methods: In this report, 1102 participants were included from 2 popular social media platforms from the Duhok Governorate in Iraqi Kurdistan between June 2 and 22, 2020, through an online technique. Results: The study revealed that 14.0% of the participants believed that there is no COVID-19 in this region, and 20.1% had no concerns about the disease spread. This study revealed that 27.4% had conspiracy thinking about the COVID-19 outbreak, including that the outbreak is a plot against/of the Kurdistan Region Government, 16.4% and 19.3%, respectively. The outbreak caused considerable changes in participants' lives (85.8%). The participants who had conspiracy thinking were younger (27.0 vs 30.0; P = 0.001) and had a higher level of education (37.50% high school and under, 26.0% college and above, 16.2% illiterate: P < 0.001). In addition, they had a private job (43.7%), and were unemployed (23.9%; P < 0.001), and had negative views on the TV information (38.9% vs 17.5%; P < 0.001). Conclusions: A considerable percentage of the public exhibits conspiracy thinking toward the COVID-19 crisis in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available