What Hantavirus Is Telling Us About the Future of Health Communication

In early May, travelers returning from a birding expedition to remote islands in the South Atlantic were diagnosed with hantavirus. Within hours of news about hantavirus circulating online, a quick TikTok or X search brought up hundreds of posts explaining symptoms, recommendations, conspiracy theories, and comparisons to COVID-19.

Before many people ever visit a government health website, they’ve already sought information on social media. That shift reflects declining trust in public health institutions.

This distrust is partially rooted in the United States’ failure to act quickly and cohesively during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. If public health institutions want to regain public trust, they must rethink the way they communicate about public health entirely. That means investing in media literacy campaigns, forming creator and influencer partnerships, and creating culturally responsive messaging.

I recently learned a new term: “media epidemiology,” sometimes called “digital or e-epidemiology.” In simple terms, epidemiology studies how diseases spread and what factors contribute to them. Consequently, media epidemiology looks at patterns in how public institutions like the World Health Organization, news outlets, and social media users share information that can influence health behaviors.

Let’s go back to the early days of COVID for a minute.

Before many states officially declared stay-at-home orders in March 2020, information on the spread of a new mystery virus in China and Italy was already in the news and circulating online. The U.S. and other countries quickly responded to the pandemic with social distancing recommendations, mask mandates, and other public safety measures. This news was then widely distributed by trusted national and global agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and the WHO. Individuals naturally shared this information through peer-to-peer communication and online public forums like Reddit, Facebook, X, and Instagram.

While access has expanded, media literacy and public health communication efforts have struggled to keep pace.

The U.S., however, had an erratic federal response to COVID-19, despite global health experts and the data proving that it was a growing concern. The U.S. accounted for the highest number of COVID-19 deaths and cases, and studies show that inaction and a poor national response were the main contributors. The Trump Administration openly disagreed with public health experts on what guidance should be published and implied that following guidelines was voluntary and optional. These were among several forms of political interference that shaped the national response.

The consequences of that breakdown in public trust are still shaping how Americans engage with health information today. Funding cuts, workforce reductions, the removal of health information from government websites, and conflicting health messages have deepened public confusion and distrust in evidence-based communication. At the same time, actions such as the withdrawal from the WHO and the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development have diminished the United States’ role in global disease surveillance and outbreak response.

Together, these challenges have weakened the federal response to hantavirus and delayed early recognition and action in the burgeoning Ebola crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda. As trust in public health institutions continues to erode, many people are turning to social media as a primary source of news and health information. More than 5 billion people globally now have access to social media platforms, giving individuals unprecedented access to information. Yet while access has expanded, media literacy and public health communication efforts have struggled to keep pace, allowing misinformation to flourish in an environment where trusted institutional guidance is increasingly absent.

The COVID-19 pandemic increased the prevalence of misinformation, with experts deeming it an “infodemic” and recognizing it as a major public health issue. Misinformation spreads more rapidly than accurate information, in part because it often appeals to fear, uncertainty, and strong emotional reactions. As a result, misleading information can spread quickly through peer-to-peer networks, extending far beyond digital platforms.

Public health institutions must take meaningful steps to regain the public’s trust.

With the rise of digital media, artificial intelligence, and rapidly evolving technology, public health institutions and practitioners face both a challenge and an opportunity. About 80% of internet users search online for health information related to doctors, hospitals, symptoms, treatments, and disease outbreaks. Public health agencies already have access to websites, social media platforms, digital advertising, and partnerships with health care professionals that might be used to quickly distribute accurate information and counter false claims. Yet these institutions have been slow to adapt to using these tools effectively.

Digital health campaigns can reach millions of people through culturally tailored messaging, creator partnerships, and user-generated content, which are the same communication styles that dominate platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. Audiences are more likely to engage with and trust familiar personalities, such as community figures and micro-influencers, than large institutions relying on formal, long-form, and highly technical communication styles.

Public health institutions must take meaningful steps to regain the public’s trust. When the next hantavirus case, Ebola outbreak, or emerging health threat appears in the headlines, the public should not have to rely on TikTok rumors, viral posts, or conspiracy theories to understand the risks. In the digital age, the future of public health will depend not only on how effectively we treat disease, but also on how effectively we communicate accurate information before misinformation takes hold.

The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of Public Health Post or Boston University School of Public Health.