Hmmm...I read all of the sites and I found many different things interesting. I found Peter Sandman's comments on pandemic psychology very interesting, particularly his observations that there is a great disparity between how much danger there actually is and how much danger the public perceives there to be. In Dori Reissman's statements, she talks about pandemics from a political point of view. When she talks about push technology and training the public to receive information that is being put out, I thought about Sandman's comments that even when the information is received, it is often distorted and the art of the journalist is to anticipate the distortion and control it. It seems to me that the public has been trained to receive information about crisis in an inverse manner to which it has been reported which makes me wonder about the level of trust that people really have in the media, the authorities, the medical community, and the government. Then I came across this example from D*** Thompson of the flu pandemic of 1918. Everyone knows about the black community and their damaged relationship with the medical community because of the Tuskegee experiments. The Vietnam War may have been the last frontier of independent news media where reporters were actually able to report things without having to go through a government filter. And the scandals about the pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists as well as their astronomical donations towards politician's political campaigns makes the medical community, the government and the media three prongs of the same fork.
If John M. Barry's words about gaining public trust through truth and not manipulation could become a reality, you might see a more synced correlation between perceived danger and actual danger and there might be a greater survival rate and less unwarranted fears.
Public terror during the 1918-19 pandemic
Once we finished our work with the outbreak guidelines, I finally was able to read “The Great Influenza” by John M. Barry. In the last two pages of the book, I was really hit hard by what he had to say, because he talked about the public terror that existed in 1918. He said it existed because public officials lied about what was going on, and it became apparent to people who were at risk that they were being lied to, and it was that broken trust that really led to what he calls the terror of 1918. He concluded his book with a plea that “Those in authority must retain the public’s trust. The way to do that is to distort nothing, to put the best face on nothing, and to try to manipulate no one.” And I hope that’s what we’re doing with our guidelines.
You need to be a member of Urgent Evoke to add comments!
Join Urgent Evoke