Misinformation surrounding COVID-19 spread rapidly and widely, posing a significant threat to public health. Here, we examined whether some types of misinformation are more believable than others, to the extent that they offer people hope in uncertain times. An initial group of subjects rated a series of COVID-19 misinformation statements for whether each made them feel more or less hopeful (if true). Based on these ratings, we selected two sets of misinformation that differed in their average rated hopefulness; the two sets did not differ in word length or reading ease. In two studies, people rated their belief in each statement. Results from both studies revealed that people rated the more hopeful misinformation (e.g., COVID cures and prevention methods) as truer than less hopeful misinformation (e.g., transmission vectors). These findings are consistent with a motivated reasoning account of misinformation acceptance.