Back

"Blame the bats again": YouTube reactions to the 2026 Ebola public health emergency reveal mistrust, misinformation, and geopolitical anxiety

NANTALAGA, K. C.; Nantege, A.

2026-07-24 public and global health
10.64898/2026.07.22.26358723 medRxiv
Show abstract

The World Health Organization declared the 2026 outbreak of Ebola disease caused by Bundibugyo virus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Public engagement on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube offers insight into public perceptions during such crises, particularly in the affected region, yet these reactions remain largely uncharacterised. We analysed public discourse and sentiment surrounding the outbreak, focusing on thematic trends in YouTube comments, using a qualitative synthesis that combined thematic content analysis with topic modelling. Videos were identified through the YouTube Data application programming interface, which returned 50 videos each for the search terms "Ebola" and "Ebola virus disease." After removing duplicates and excluding videos published before the 17 May 2026 emergency declaration, the 10 most-viewed videos were retained. From 4,457 extracted comments, 4,087 were analysed using Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic modelling, complemented by a lexicon-based sentiment analysis. Five themes emerged: geopolitical and cultural context; public figures, conspiracy theories, and misinformation; disease spread and transmission; public health measures and preparedness; and religious and spiritual interpretation. Discourse was strongly shaped by border concerns, mistrust of institutions, global aid politics, and comparisons with COVID-19, and sentiment was split near-evenly between fear and trust. Effective health communication during this outbreak must therefore address not only the scientific and medical dimensions of the emergency but also its geopolitical, cultural, and religious dimensions, while countering misinformation and building public trust.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.