Reacción a "A review identifies what most influences polarization on health issues"

This article is a systematic review and, as such, is based on a solid and proven methodology for studying a specific aspect in scientific literature. In this case, it analyzes polarization in the field of health in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and the factors that contribute to it. The authors deserve great credit, as they include articles with very diverse methodologies and are able to provide a clear summary of the main topics covered. Following their analysis, the factors identified are political ideology (and the underlying intrinsic polarization), misinformation, social media dynamics, trust in health institutions, perception of risks to individual health and that of loved ones, and socioeconomic factors.

For several years, various research studies have warned of the polarization of society, especially in relation to the pandemic. This study is novel because it synthesizes these studies and does a great job of summarizing the key factors that contribute to this polarization.

Perhaps one limitation to bear in mind, in terms of interpretation, is that this study may, ironically, contribute to polarization. Without questioning its scientific rigor, it presents certain social groups as “rational” compliers of health regulations, while the ideologically opposed group is portrayed as “emotional” non-compliers who rebel against the rules. Again, I do not question that this is the scientific reality pointed to by the results, but perhaps we should develop narratives that depolarize society, rather than widening the gap between the two ways of thinking.

On another note, when discussing the first factor (political ideology), it would have been interesting to discuss the results in terms of the political leanings of the countries' governments during the pandemic. Given the “partisanship” found by the authors, it is worth considering whether the reaction to government decisions would have been the opposite if they had been governed by those who were then in opposition.

In my opinion, this study is highly relevant to health policy in Spain. As the authors propose at the end of the discussion, an effort should be made to mitigate polarization and achieve greater cohesion, especially in times of crisis. Perhaps this will not be achieved until there is effective depoliticization of health and research, leading to consensus-based regulations and directives. Today, this is a dream, but works such as this are important in making our leaders aware that, if they truly want the common good, they must change their ways of acting.