The “5G Causes COVID” narrative is a conspiracy claim that links cellular network technology to the COVID-19 pandemic—either by asserting that 5G somehow created the disease, worsened it, or helped it spread. This timeline focuses on what can be dated and documented: public statements by institutions, platform policy moves, and real-world incidents associated with the claim’s spread.
This article is for informational and analytical purposes and does not constitute legal, medical, investment, or purchasing advice.
Timeline: key dates and turning points
-
Late 2019: Early 5G rollout narratives become a “pattern match” for later claims — 5G deployments expanded in multiple countries before and during the early pandemic period, which later allowed “coincidence-style” arguments (e.g., “5G exists where COVID exists”) to circulate. This is a common structure in misinformation: correlation is presented as causation, without mechanism or controlled evidence. (Background context on what 5G is and what frequencies imply for exposure is summarized by ICNIRP.)
-
January–March 2020: COVID-19 becomes global news; “5G causes COVID” content circulates online — As COVID-19 cases rose globally, the claim that 5G was linked to the outbreak spread on social platforms and messaging apps, often packaged with assertions about Wuhan and 5G rollout. News coverage later documented that telecom companies and UK officials were dealing with misinformation alongside the public-health emergency.
-
April 2, 2020: UK broadcast regulator signals intervention against “baseless” 5G–COVID claims — Ofcom (UK communications regulator) is reported as monitoring broadcasters and warning against airing potentially harmful claims about COVID’s causes/origins, noting it was not aware of reputable scientific evidence supporting such content. This matters because it shows the claim had moved beyond fringe posts into broadcast-adjacent controversy.
-
April 4–6, 2020: Documented attacks and harassment tied to the 5G–COVID rumor wave — Multiple UK masts were attacked and telecom engineers harassed during early April 2020 amid the spread of “5G causes coronavirus” narratives. Coverage includes reports of fires and the practical impact on communications infrastructure. Note: not every attacked mast was necessarily 5G equipment; some were 2G/3G/4G sites but were targeted under the same rumor framing.
-
April 5, 2020: YouTube limits recommendations of “5G and coronavirus” conspiracy content — Reporting indicates YouTube reduced recommendations of borderline content relating to 5G and coronavirus and removed videos violating its COVID-19 policies. This is a key platform turning point: distribution was treated as part of the harm mechanism, not only explicit rule-breaking uploads.
-
April 2020: High-profile UK TV controversy; regulator assessment — UK presenter Eamonn Holmes received criticism for comments seen as giving credence to the theory; Ofcom said it was assessing the program after hundreds of complaints. This marks a mainstream amplification moment, where “just asking questions” framing collided with public-health and misinformation concerns.
-
April 14, 2020: Reports of attacks affecting critical connectivity (including a hospital context) — Reporting describes a phone mast targeted amid widespread conspiracy narratives, with telecom executives describing dozens of attacks and abuse toward engineers. This is significant because it documents tangible downstream harm (infrastructure disruption risks), independent of whether the underlying claim is true.
-
2020: International institutional messaging rejects the claim as technically baseless — A UN-linked communications framing (reported via UN News/ITU spokesperson statements) described the idea that coronavirus spreads via radio waves as a hoax with no technical basis. This is not a peer-reviewed study, but it is a traceable institutional response aimed at public clarity.
-
2020 onward: Radiation-health experts publish direct rebuttals to “5G causes COVID” claims — The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection explicitly addressed claims that 5G EMFs cause COVID-19 or affect severity, stating they are unsupported by evidence and are not feasible based on established EMF science. This is important as a “primary-style” expert body statement focused directly on mechanism and feasibility.
-
October 2021: Broadcast enforcement action in the UK references 5G–COVID conspiracy content — Ofcom fined the channel LoveWorld for airing misleading COVID-related content, including claims that 5G caused the virus (as described in reporting). This is a later institutional marker showing the claim persisted and was addressed via media regulation.
-
2021 and later: Fact-checking reviews continue; criticism focuses on lack of mechanism and selective citation — PolitiFact summarized why a cited pro-claim paper was criticized (e.g., selective evidence and the paper’s own acknowledgments). This reflects how the claim often attempts to borrow scientific credibility without meeting standards of balanced review or causal demonstration.
Where the timeline gets disputed
Dispute #1: “Were the mast attacks truly caused by belief in the ‘5G Causes COVID’ claim?” Public reporting strongly associates early-April 2020 attacks/harassment with the rumor wave, and officials and companies described the connection. However, for any single incident, motive can be hard to prove publicly unless police/court documents clearly establish it. Some attacks also targeted non-5G infrastructure, showing the belief may have been broader than technical accuracy.
Dispute #2: “Does institutional rejection prove the claim is false?” Institutional statements (e.g., regulators, expert bodies, UN-linked agencies) document what authorities concluded based on known transmission routes and EMF science. They do not substitute for a complete mapping of every social-media origin point, nor do they prove what every claimant believed. Still, they are strong documentation that the claim lacked credible support at the time it surged.
Dispute #3: “Who started it?” Some coverage and secondary references connect prominent influencers to amplification. But “origin” is often not provable from public records because narratives emerge across many accounts and platforms, including private groups and encrypted messaging. A timeline can document amplification moments more reliably than it can identify a single source of creation.
Evidence score (and what it means)
Evidence score: 80/100 (documentation strength)
-
Strong documentation of real-world impacts: multiple mainstream reports document attacks/harassment tied to the rumor environment and official responses to it.
-
Clear institutional rebuttals on mechanism: expert bodies explicitly state EMFs cannot carry viruses and that claims of 5G causing COVID-19 are unsupported and not feasible.
-
Documented platform/regulatory actions: platform distribution limits and broadcast-regulator monitoring/enforcement are time-stamped and traceable.
-
Limits: the exact “patient zero” of the rumor is not provable from public sources; some details are reconstructed from reporting rather than court findings or complete platform data.
Evidence score is not probability:
The score reflects how strong the documentation is, not how likely the claim is to be true.
FAQ
What is the “5G causes COVID” claim?
The “5G causes COVID” claim is a set of narratives asserting that 5G either caused COVID-19, spreads it, or worsens outcomes. In documented institutional responses, the core technical premise is rejected: viruses require physical transmission routes, and radio waves do not carry biological pathogens.
Did any health or radiation authority find evidence that 5G causes COVID-19?
In the sources reviewed here, expert bodies and institutions cited state that claims linking 5G EMF exposure to causing COVID-19 (or worsening it) are not supported by evidence and are not feasible given what is known about EMFs and viral transmission.
Why did the “5G causes COVID” claim spread so quickly in early 2020?
Documented turning points include widespread social sharing, some celebrity/influencer amplification, and platform distribution dynamics (recommendations and sharing). News reporting from April 2020 also indicates the claim traveled across multiple channels (social networks, messaging apps, and even broadcast discussions).
Were 5G towers actually attacked because of the claim?
Multiple reports from early April 2020 describe attacks on masts and harassment of engineers occurring amid the conspiracy theory wave, with telecom companies and officials linking the incidents to misinformation. However, motive for individual incidents may not always be conclusively proven in public reporting, and some targeted infrastructure was not 5G.
Where can I find a simple authoritative explanation addressing “5G causes COVID”?
ICNIRP published a direct statement addressing the claim, explaining that EMFs from 5G cannot cause COVID-19 and cannot carry viruses, and that infection requires physical contact with the virus.
