Virus - Panic or Calm Down?
Why do people over-react to some risks but appear comfortable with other things which actually pose a much greater risk?
There are two main purposes of crisis communication, one is to raise the alarm when you need to alert people to a risk and encourage necessary precautions, and the other is to convey calming messages to minimise panic and irrational behaviour.
So, what should governments be doing right now?
This article is not intended to second-guess medical experts, government policies or researchers with access to better data, as I believe we need to be tolerant with tough decisions in times of crisis, even if they appear to be heavy-handed. There is never a perfect rule that everyone will agree on.
The purpose of this article is merely to provide some different perspectives and provoke healthy discussion, and maybe ideas for managing future crisis situations which will definitely arise.
It was reported that 20 people died in Australia in March as a result of the coronavirus. Clearly a tragic situation for the family and friends, but not a tragedy for the country as a whole. Some people have suggested the chosen cure of shutting down the entire economy may be worse for the community as a whole than the disease itself
20 Died in March From the Virus but 13,000 Died From Other Causes
In the same month of March 13,000 Australians died from other causes including cancer, old age, illnesses, suicides and accidents.
The Australian road toll each year exceeds 1,000 fatalities, and 95 people were killed in the month of February alone, but this has not caused panic, and more of the road toll victims are young people in the prime of their lives.
95 People die Each Month on Australian Roads
Yes, the virus toll in March would have been much higher without the sensible travel restrictions, social distancing, and increased hygiene rules we currently have. So, let us turn to who is catching the virus and who is worst affected?
Many think the coronavirus only affects “old people”, but data from the Australian Department of Health shows every age group (in 10-year intervals) has contracted coronavirus. The peak being those in the 20 to 30-year old group. Probably the most mobile age group for travel?
Every age Group can be Infected but Very few Under 60 Years of age Have Died
However, very few Australians under 60 years of age have died as a result of the coronavirus, with the vast majority of virus fatalities occurring in the 70 and 80-year bracket and we understand most had an existing illness or respiratory vulnerability.
Virus Deadly for Elderly, Particularly with Existing Illness
What this data suggests is that concentration on isolation of the elderly would be a more effective and efficient way to control the most serious impact of the epidemic without the devastating damage to the economy and social lives for the rest of the community.
The primary reason for the government’s chosen strategy appears from media reporting to be to match the predicted rate of virus infections to the estimated number of ventilators and intensive care unit (ICU) beds that could be available.
This is a sensible albeit simplistic mathematical equation which will likely deliver the stated objective e.g. adequate number of ventilators and ICU beds but totally ignores the wider economic and social cost of this strategy.
Traditional Research had to Prove the Cure was Efficacious, Cost Effective and not Worse than the Disease
There does not appear to be any appetite to publicly discuss alternative ways of protecting the vulnerable elderly without the crippling side effects on the wider community, or the huge debt we will have to repay.
It is difficult for politicians because they always have to find that middle ground that everyone can live with and be able to clearly get their message out consistently.
Political messaging also has to compete with sectional campaigns like health representatives demanding more resources and business advocates demanding policies which support “healthy jobs and healthy profits”.
Each sectional interest tends to offer solutions that only satisfy their limited sphere of interest. For example, Police usually offer tougher laws and stronger enforcement when asked how to reduce the road toll.
Risk Management or Pedalling Panic
Every day the media announce with apparent delight, the extra number of virus cases in Australia or elsewhere if worse, but do not mention the good news e.g. that the virus peaked in Australia many weeks ago (28 March) and has been dropping ever since.
If the epidemic is under control, as evidenced by continued drop in the number of cases, then all restrictions which do not increase the virus risk, such as fishing alone and playing golf (in pairs only) should be lifted immediately.
Some say, but the virus may return. This is true, but you are more likely to die from influenza (flu) this year than Coronavirus. Indeed, heart disease particularly if you are a smoker, traffic accidents or other poor lifestyle habits are more likely to kill you.
So, what should we really be worrying about? The media have decided you must worry about Coronavirus no matter what.
Media Focus on bad News, not the Good News
Communities and their governments have always considered the cost of saving lives, even though they have not have openly stated so or shared their calculations. For example, why are many successful cancer or other drugs not made available to sufferers or not subsidised by the government?
The answer is the relevant minister has balanced the number of people afflicted with “X” disease against the cost of a special drug. This includes assessment of cost to the budget against other health options which could benefit a larger group of the community.
When did we Change to “We Must Save Every Life Affected by a Virus no Matter What the Cost”?
For the first time in our history cost has become irrelevant for virus control, but this approach is not being applied equally or indeed to other threats that pose a greater risk to the community and regularly kill more people in Australia.
The “flu” Kills About 2,500 Australians Every Year and Smoking About 20,000
Could we have saved more lives by injecting the same amount of money spent on coronavirus into safer roads and vehicles, or heart research, better solutions for the flu, or how to change harmful life-style habits like smoking and poor diet?
There is a saying “to be a safety rule it must have a safety benefit”. This statement is intended to challenge those making the rules to stop and ask themselves – what benefit does this rule provide, and could I provide the same or similar benefit in a less disruptive or costly manner?
To be a Safety Rule it Must Have Safety Benefit
Some think this is the perfect time with less traffic for parents with students trapped at home with nothing to do to take them out for driving lessons. As long as they stay in the car there is no risk of spreading the virus.
If it is still safe to travel on trains and buses how can it not be safe to go fishing on your own, or for a drive?
Worst-Case Scenarios are Always Alarming e.g. Bees can Kill
More thought needs to be put into communicating balanced messages not just alarmist daily statistics and worst-case scenarios. Worst-case scenarios are always alarming eg bees can kill you is true but they very unlikely to sting you, let alone kill you. Similar to Coronavirus unless you are over 60 with an existing illness.
Maybe the key Crisis Communication Could Include:
Don’t panic! The risk of contracting the coronavirus is very low if everyone continues to exercise good hygiene and social distancing.
All age groups can contract the coronavirus, but the effects are mild for most people.
Other risks kill more people than coronavirus, so maintain a healthy lifestyle and risk management balance.
Vulnerable people should self-isolate until this epidemic is over, as the virus is typically more serious for the ill and elderly.
Follow good hygiene and social distance rules at work, home and in public.
What Have we Learned from This Epidemic?
This article is not about blaming health departments, researchers, or governments for alleged lack of planning for this epidemic as I think most will agree the speed of the spread of this virus and lack of effective treatments was not reasonably foreseeable.
However, now we have experienced this epidemic we can learn from it including:
Expect future epidemics, by whatever name, timing, or source.
Expect future epidemics to spread rapidly, and possibly reach around the world before being fully recognised or understood.
Maintain sensible social distancing and good hygiene habits, that we have perfected over recent weeks, as they have always been valuable if not fully recognised in the past.
Refine working from home preparedness as this may be needed again, or indeed become normal for many more people.
Update Risk Registers to highlight the greater impact of epidemics, and also consider other events that could impact on world trade or interrupt critical supplies.
Every organisation, large and small, needs to have contingency plans in place for future epidemics. For example, many major sports are primarily viewed as TV events e.g. Olympics, horse racing, F1 car racing etc, and could have plans to isolate the competitors to allow continuation where possible.
The coronavirus experience may even help us achieve fewer cases of influenza this year and in the future, as a result of our heightened hygiene, new social distancing habits and greater awareness of the need for vaccination.
