I'm not an expert on crisis management or epidemics, but I feel like I think logically and do have experience measuring risk in my own field. In this article
, the speaker describes risk as hazard + outrage. While I understand the point he's trying to make about public perception being equally important as the hazard, I found his conclusions quite illogical.
Perhaps I don't understand his usage of the word risk, but he's described as an expert in risk communication, so I'm assuming he's talking about the risk of communicating information. If that is what he's speaking about the way I've been taught to define risk is to look at the potential exposure from each action. Your exposure would be the number of infections you save or add based on your action, which in this example would be communicating information.
In my opinion there should be some measure of the EFFECT that informing people of the threat would be. To me this is even more important than outrage. If spreading knowledge about the situation will help the outbreak from spreading or help people deal with it, then the risk of NOT getting the information out is high. If the propagation of knowledge is not likely to help, and might in fact might harm the population by creating panic then the risk of GETTING the information out might be high.
So in conclusion, I think risk of communicating sensitive information about an epidemic should be based almost completely on whether the effect of that communication would positively or negatively effect the situation.