How are you? It has been six years since you moved from China to America for education. I’ve never thought that we would meet again in this way as students in the same university. When talking about the most impressive thing in recent years, we both agreed that it is the COVID-19 pandemic. It is special to be the first pandemic in the age of information, the public, though kept informed of the latest news about the pandemic, did not react as scientifically as we imagined. A possible reason is that though the Internet provides scientific information to the public, is also amplifies misinformation, causing “infodemic” (WHO). As WHO declared, mis- and disinformation spread through an infodemic is harmful for both physical and mental health, influencing both nation’s public health measures and individuals. It seems that the reason of the public’s irrational reactions is clear, but is it the ultimate answer? As a Chinese student, I noticed some differences between the “infodemic” in China and America. One of the distinctive characteristics of the infodemic in America, which is also the source of polarization and distrust, is the trend of pollicization of the COVID-19 issue. The trend of politicization of pandemic is worthy of more attention because it is the deeper reason of some American people’s irrational and unscientific behaviors comparing to the mere lack of scientific education or knowledge of the virus.
    My confusion originated from the contrast between the number of cases in America and China. By 17 April 2021, over thirty million Americans have been infected (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), while in China, the number is ninety thousand (National Health Commission of the PRC). Considering the advantage of America over China in the number of physicians per thousand people, the public’s education level and density of population, the number of cases in America shouldn’t have be like this. Where lies the problem?
    A possible answer is the policization of the coronavirus issue. Casero Ripolle, sociology professor in Jaume I University, finds a “resurgence of the role of legacy media” in the pandemic in America, which he thinks as a positive signal for people’s engagement with public affairs and judgement of misleading information. However, P. Sol Hart, professor of scientific communication in Michigan University, might not agree with this argument. Legacy media, like newspapers, are not necessarily “safer” than network news. On the contrary, his research suggests that newspaper usually has higher politicization level than network news – the resurgence of legacy media can hint a politicization trend of the coronavirus issue.
    There is evidence from both the academic sources and the news supporting the explanation of politicization for people’s irrational reaction at the early stage of the pandemic. In a survey conducted by the University of Minnesota on US adults’ perception about COVID-19 information, over half of the participants reported they got information from direct political sources (Nagler 7). With limited knowledge about the novel coronavirus, people tend to rely on political elites to form their opinions. However, scientists or political elites could not give a clear and uniform answer early in the pandemic (Nagler 7), which created chance for rumors of political purpose. The consequence of politicization of the pandemic? We can see it form the former president, Donald Trump: with his understatement of the pandemic and prediction that the virus would go away quickly (Gollust 971), his supporters are less likely react scientifically to it. In Trump’s election campaigns, few of his supporters wore masks or kept a proper social distance, showing a distrust of science and lack of awareness of basic preventive measures.
    When a public issue is politicized, it might not help shift public’s opinion just by providing scientific information. Toby Bolsen, associate professor of political science in Georgia State University, finds that in the issue of climate change, which has long been politicized, Democrats and Republicans polarize even more when gaining more information (390). That is, the “partisan group identity reigns” tends to supreme over scientific consensus in a politicized issue (Bolsen 390). This in an extent explains why some American people continue to believe rumors about the pandemic despite scientific information provided – this is not a matter of science but a matter of politics to them. It also gives us with a unique perspective to answer why the US, compared with China, did not behave as well as it should be in the early stage of the pandemic. Chinese politicians have no need to politicize the coronavirus issue to attack their rivals and people are not divided into two opposite parties as well, so the infodemic in China gained no energy from political elites and soon fainted away when more scientific information was provided.
    Though America has nearly come through this pandemic, reflecting on how pollicization affect the people’s scientific judgement at an early stage of the pandemic can still be helpful for the preparation for the next public health crisis. Attributing the spread of mis- and disinformation to the mere lack of scientific knowledge of the public is not enough. By comparing the situations in America and China, we find that the politicization of the pandemic in America can serve as one of the deeper reasons for the difference of the infodemic in these two countries. The scientific community has not formed a clear conclusion on how to counteract the politicization of science, but some preliminary researches do provide insights for us. For example, Bolsen discovered that in some situations individuals can resist the influence of politicization after receiving prior warning about it (751). Though the pandemic has nearly come to an end, I do hope this letter can be an early warning for you and those people in the social context of politicization to prepare for the next public issue that might be influenced.
   

Works Cited
Bolsen, Toby, and James N. Druckman. “Do Partisanship and Politicization Undermine the      Impact of a Scientific Consensus Message about Climate Change?” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, vol. 21, no. 3, Apr. 2018, pp. 389–402. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/1368430217737855. Accessed 19 April 2021.
- - -. “Counteracting the Politicization of Science.” Journal of Communication, vol. 65, no. 5, Oct. 2015, pp. 745–769. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/jcom.12171. Accessed 19 April 2021.
Casero-Ripollés, Andreu. “Impact of Covid-19 on the Media System. Communicative and Democratic Consequences of News Consumption during the Outbreak.” El Profesional de La Información, vol. 29, no. 2, Mar. 2020, pp. 1–11. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3145/epi.2020.mar.23. Accessed 7 April 2021.
Gollust, Sarah E., et al. “The Emergence of COVID-19 in the US: A Public Health and Political Communication Crisis.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law, vol. 45, no. 6, Dec. 2020, pp. 967–981. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1215/03616878-8641506. Accessed 19 April 2021.
Hart, P.Sol, et al. “Politicization and Polarization in COVID-19 News Coverage.” Science Communication, vol. 42, no. 5, Oct. 2020, pp. 679–697. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/1075547020950735. Accessed 18 April 2021.
Nagler, Rebekah H., et al. “Public Perceptions of Conflicting Information Surrounding COVID-19: Results from a Nationally Representative Survey of U.S. Adults.” PLoS ONE, vol. 15, no. 10, Oct. 2020, pp. 1–18. EBSCOhost. Accessed 18 April 2021.

(Photo provided by Sergio Flores/Getty Images) (2020 Getty Images)