“5G causes COVID” refers to a set of online claims alleging that 5G mobile technology either causes COVID-19 directly, weakens the immune system in a way that explains the pandemic, or helps the virus spread. The claim is widely rejected by public authorities and scientific experts, but it spread rapidly in 2020 and had real-world consequences—most notably vandalism and arson attacks against telecommunications infrastructure in some countries.
This article is for informational and analytical purposes and does not constitute legal, medical, investment, or purchasing advice.
What the claim says
The phrase “5G causes COVID” is used as shorthand for multiple, related versions of the same narrative. The most common variants include:
-
Direct causation: 5G radio waves “cause” the disease COVID-19 (sometimes framed as the symptoms being misdiagnosed as a viral illness).
-
Transmission mechanism: 5G towers (or mobile networks) “spread” COVID-19, implying a virus can travel via radio waves or phone signals.
-
Immune suppression: 5G exposure allegedly weakens immunity, making people more susceptible to SARS‑CoV‑2 (the virus that causes COVID-19).
-
Cover story: the pandemic is said to be a “cover” for illnesses caused by 5G rollouts.
These versions often blend with other narratives (e.g., distrust of governments, public health agencies, or large technology companies), which can make the overall “claim” difficult to pin down to one testable statement.
Where it came from and why it spread
Documented origin (early 2020): By early 2020, social media posts and videos were circulating that asserted a link between 5G and COVID-19. This included viral content promoting the idea that COVID-19 was not a conventional infectious disease, or that the outbreak coincided with 5G deployment in certain places. Summaries of this period note that versions of the claim appeared by late January 2020 and then accelerated.
Amplification dynamics: The spread was influenced by a familiar pattern seen in other misinformation events: short, shareable videos; “alternative health” framing; misinterpreted technical language about frequencies/radiation; and celebrity or influencer sharing that increased reach. Reporting from spring 2020 documented how the theory traveled quickly through large platforms and private messaging.
Platform moderation as a turning point: As the narrative gained traction, major platforms faced pressure to reduce harm. For example, in April 2020 YouTube said it would reduce recommendations of borderline 5G/COVID conspiracy content and remove videos violating its policies.
Offline consequences reinforced visibility: In the UK and elsewhere, telecom infrastructure was attacked amid these rumors, which created news coverage that further signaled “something is happening,” even though the coverage was about the harms of misinformation. UK reporting documented arson and vandalism incidents, and officials publicly condemned the claims.
Why it spread so well: Several factors likely contributed:
-
Correlation appeal: 5G rollouts and COVID-19 were both highly salient in 2020, making coincidence narratives persuasive to some audiences.
-
Technical complexity: Wireless engineering and epidemiology are both complex; uncertainty can be exploited with confident-sounding but incorrect explanations.
-
Pre-existing fears: Concern about electromagnetic fields existed prior to COVID-19, giving the claim an audience primed to accept it.
-
Information overload: During fast-moving crises, people may rely on simplified narratives that appear to “connect the dots.”
What is documented vs what is inferred
Documented / well-supported:
-
Public authorities rejected the claim. The UK government published guidance stating there is no evidence linking 5G and COVID-19, and explicitly notes that viruses cannot travel on radio waves or mobile networks.
-
Real-world harm occurred. Major outlets reported arson and vandalism against telecommunications equipment associated with (or mistaken for) 5G during the peak of the rumor.
-
Platforms and regulators treated it as harmful misinformation. YouTube’s April 2020 response and UK media/regulatory responses show institutional recognition that the claim was spreading and could contribute to harm.
Plausible but unproven (often asserted, but not demonstrated as a COVID-specific explanation):
-
General debates about RF exposure and health policy exist. There are ongoing scientific and policy disagreements about how to interpret parts of the research literature on radiofrequency exposure and whether current standards are sufficiently precautionary. For example, some researchers argue that assumptions underlying exposure limits are inadequate and call for stricter standards.
Contradicted or unsupported (core of “5G causes COVID”):
-
That 5G can create a coronavirus. A prominent example used online was a paper claiming a mechanism for “induction of coronavirus in cells”; the UK fact-checking organization Full Fact reported that the paper was baseless and that the journal removed it, and stated that coronaviruses are not created by radio waves.
-
That a virus can “travel” via radio waves or mobile networks. UK government guidance explicitly addresses this point, stating viruses cannot travel on radio waves or mobile networks.
Common misunderstandings
1) Mixing “radiation” categories. Some posts treat all “radiation” as identical. In reality, public exposure guidelines for RF (including mobile communications) are typically framed around preventing established adverse effects (often related to heating at sufficient power). ICNIRP’s materials describe how exposure limits are designed to avoid harmful heating and tissue effects, and discuss how higher frequencies tend to penetrate less deeply.
2) Confusing coincidence with causation. The rollout of new infrastructure and the arrival of a pandemic can coincide without one causing the other. This is especially relevant because COVID-19 spread in many regions irrespective of local 5G availability (a point cited by official guidance and fact-checkers).
3) “One study proves it.” Viral claims often hinge on a single preprint, a misread paper, or a non-peer-reviewed document. The Full Fact example illustrates how a paper can be shared as “proof” even when it lacks evidence and is later removed by the journal.
4) Conflating “5G health debate” with “COVID causation.” Even if someone believes existing RF limits should be stricter (a real policy debate), that does not provide evidence that 5G caused a specific infectious disease outbreak.
Evidence score (and what it means)
Evidence score: 12/100
-
No credible mechanism demonstrated for 5G to generate or transmit a coronavirus; core assertions are directly rejected by official guidance and mainstream scientific understanding.
-
High-quality documentation exists for the claim’s spread and impact (misinformation dissemination and infrastructure attacks), which is separate from whether the claim is true.
-
Some scientific disagreement exists about RF health risk interpretation and exposure-limit policy, but it does not substantiate “5G causes COVID.”
-
Reliable sources broadly converge that the specific 5G/COVID linkage is unsupported, while still acknowledging broader public debate around EMF standards.
Evidence score is not probability:
The score reflects how strong the documentation is, not how likely the claim is to be true.
What we still don’t know
What we do not know (and what that does and does not imply):
-
Long-term RF exposure debates will continue. Scientists and policy groups disagree about what existing studies imply for chronic low-level exposure and whether standards should change. That uncertainty is about risk management and interpretation—not evidence that 5G caused COVID-19.
-
Exact “patient zero” of the rumor is hard to prove. We can document major amplification events, but misinformation typically emerges from many accounts across platforms and languages, making a single origin point difficult to establish with certainty.
-
Why certain communities adopted it more strongly. Some factors (trust, anxiety, platform dynamics) are plausible explanations, but the relative weight of each factor varies by location and network and is not always measurable from public data.
FAQ
Is there evidence that “5G causes COVID”?
Public authorities in the UK stated there is no evidence of a link between 5G and COVID-19 and explicitly addressed the idea that viruses could travel via mobile networks as false.
Can viruses spread through radio waves or phone signals?
UK government guidance addressing 5G/COVID misinformation states that viruses cannot travel on radio waves or mobile networks.
Did the “5G causes COVID” claim lead to real-world incidents?
Yes. News outlets documented arson and vandalism incidents targeting telecom masts during the period when the conspiracy theory was circulating widely, along with reports of harassment of telecom engineers.
Did platforms take action against 5G/COVID misinformation?
In April 2020, YouTube publicly said it would reduce recommendations of borderline content related to 5G and coronavirus and remove videos that violated its policies.
Are there legitimate scientific discussions about 5G health effects (separate from COVID)?
Yes, there is ongoing debate. Some bodies (such as ICNIRP) state that compliance with their guidelines protects against established adverse health effects and describe how those guidelines address 5G-relevant frequencies. Separately, some researchers argue the evidence base supports more precautionary exposure limits. These disputes do not constitute evidence that 5G caused COVID-19.
