Yes, this! "For some readers, “low risk” reads as “do nothing”; what they actually want to hear is “low risk and public health is working hard to keep it that way.” A small distinction that turns out to be the whole game."
Really? Here is a quote I found on substack this morning (someone wrote an article about hantavirus):
"This essay is not about panic.
It is about what happens after six years of panic, contradiction, censorship, disappearing information, pharmaceutical money, expert sermons, and algorithmic fear.
At some point, ordinary people stop trusting the narrator."
oh yeah, I believe that. I've read several articles about how science communication should get better. And part of that is the thing above: giving us more information. Don't just say "don't panic," tell us why we don't have to panic (because the spread is slow, we've seen this virus before, and contact tracing is working). So maybe that sentence isn't the WHOLE game, but more "public health is working hard to keep it that way and here's how."
Thank you for this very well researched and written report. I am an MD, and over the past several days family members have asked me about this. Very helpful
Keep up the good work. Please know that some non-trivial portion of the heat you are getting is in bad faith from people who are throwing rocks and mud for laughs or to specifically undermine your work. It's a reality of our new world.
Very informative post. Thank you so much. I cringe when I hear an official say "the risk to the public is low." The reality is that the risk to the public is low until it is not. I love the alternative phrasing "the risk to the public is low and public health officials at all levels are working very hard to keep it that way."
This is the first source I go to when it comes to public heath. The MAHA hacks have completely taken away any trust I have of federal public health safety.
Thank you very much for this insightful article on viruses and fears! I’ve taken the liberty of summarising the key points in an infographic and hope you like it.
I am NOT implying that there is any concern for a Hanta Virus pandemic. However, there are MAGA & GOP people who are suggesting that people should obtain and use ivermectin to prevent and/or treat Hanta Virus. This is a public warning, please do NOT do that!
I was a nurse and EMT for several years. I have administered ivermectin to patients in the past, but only for parasitic infections and infestations—not for viral illnesses.
There has been discussion and some laboratory speculation about possible antiviral effects, including theoretical interactions with viral RNA or DNA. However, this has not been clinically proven, validated, or approved as a treatment for any virus.
Ivermectin is not a safe or effective treatment for viral infections. It is not indicated for COVID-19, SARS, influenza, or hantavirus.
That is the established world-wide medical consensus.
True, ivermectin has not been approved for viral infections. So what? We like to experiment. We have active patient communities sharing informal results of such experiments. Ivermectin has long been approved as very safe for human use, and guess what? The authorities lied to us with their "you are not a cow, you are not a horse" propaganda. Thank THEM for the loss of trust.
Why doesn't the owner of this stack do a post about all the lies the authorities told us during that debacle? It would be longish. And all our side would need to do is add the few that were missed. (I can dream.) :-)
"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday called for Anthony Fauci, former longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to be indicted for what the senator claimed was his lying under oath about gain-of-function research."
The claims of "lies the authorities told" are attacks used by the anti-vaccine outrage-mongers to whip up the fear, uncertainty, doubt. It's basically throwing mud and hoping something, anything sticks. Because there's no downside to the mud-throwers from their base.
I don't believe today that we would ever get honest information from our government. In the event of another pandemic there will be panic, secrecy and paranoia while many many people die.
Like how they told us the first pandemic was over? Cause covid isn't over! The secrecy is already happening, as wealthy people take precautions like air purifiers and requiring their workers to mask, while the rest of us don't get a shred of that reality, being told it is over. Smh.
The American citizenary has as their president a convicted felon, habitual liar, the lastest example being he states that Pope Leo ascribes to statements that are demonstrably false...aka a lie!
I have exhausted the negative adjectives characterizing DJT & his clan of minions that individually & collectively have the singular goal of self-gratification.
It is no surprise the public have lost trust in their government & health institutions.
Even as many in public health are posting measured responses to this, in the conservative counties I work in I see many liked comments saying things like “here we go again” or “plandemic”. I can’t help but wonder what another actual pandemic would look like in terms of public response. Would there be some threshold in mortality rate that would actually get people to take it seriously? How much could people say that they don’t trust the data until the reality of their friends and family dying sinks in? Would it be too late to stop catastrophic spread?
Morbid thoughts I know but this lingering “haunting” will forever make me uneasy.
If it were really gross that would help get attention. Such as huge amounts of sputum, diarrhea, vomit or bleeding from orifices. COVID at first glance lulled some into thinking it was as serious as a common "cold". And mixed messaging from HCF's, PCP's, govt, etc made it impossible to sort through with confidence in anything.
Well, a good start would be skipping the place where you haul out endless scaretactics like counting "cases" of people who are not ill, in your face, 24/7.
How much do you understand about how public health works?
Cases were counted because someone was tested and tested positive. This was usually done by a healthcare provider, then reported to public health. Hospitalizations and deaths were also tracked. Cases are important to track regardless of severity of illness- it allows us to track trends, and knowing about cases can then allow contact tracing.
Do you understand how trust works? Count the ill. Track contacts from the ill. Count the hospitalized. Count deaths, but honestly. Do not count deaths of gun shot wounds and traffic accidents where the person "had tested positive." I would have thought this would be... a given.
And give a very public number of the ill that qualifies as a "pandemic." I was unable to find such a number. I know of at least one high placed public health MD who resigned because she was pressured to declare a pandemic and she did not see the numbers.
I'm really trying to understand if you are engaging in good faith, because you are changing topics.
The deaths thing- you do realize that happened for like two weeks and was rapidly fixed right? Algorithms were set up to track someone who tested positive and then died within a certain amount of time. Once authorities realized that was too broad, they rapidly changed the definitions to catch true deaths. I saw this happen in real time. It is so fascinating to me how the first part was rapidly reported, but then the fix was not? An issue was raised, it was fixed quickly, that should build trust should it not?
Sadly, you cannot win. There is no amount of nuance and careful communication and respect and etc etc which will save public health from the shameless liars stoking fear and outrage. The mathematical problem is that "low risk" events will *usually* not become a crisis. But every once in a while, the difference between "low risk" and "no risk", will be seen. Tactically, the hate-machine will say first "You said low-risk before, and you were WRONG". And then when "low" vs "no" happens, attack that.
By all means, fight the good fight. However, it's more about doing good for the sake of doing good, than victory from being pure of heart.
The "ghosts" of the early days, months & yr's of the CoVID pandemic are real & profoundly tragic for thousands of people.
However, science & medicine are messy & we don't always get it right. Yes, effective communication is needed & most often a learned skill... don't always get it right...as noted in your post, (we) don't always get it right, yet each of you were trying.
I don't have a Facebook act'n nor do I follow any other form of social media other than a list of credible, knowledgeable & passionate educators who post on Substacks.
The the recent events discussed have been documented to be that of hantavirus infections.
The Argentinan outbreak of hantavirus was found to be caused by Andes virus, one of numerous species of hantavirus.
Has there been genetic sequencing of the recent cases that show the virus to in fact be the Andes virus?
I may have missed this information but it is central to the question as to the 'risk' of those exposed to this species of hantavirus.
I am not implying any infection of hantavirus is not reason for concern (substitute any adjective), however there are cases that occur each year in the SW USA that never become national news.
Here is the story about the cruise ship inspectors. It was NOT originally 12 inspectors. That is all that now remain. Also note the lead epidemiologist for the program was laid off. The CDC is not being truthful.
That article looks informative, but those firings had been reported from non regime-captured sources. I consider CBS a notch better than Fox (for now).
Your odds of being struck by lightning are more than seven times greater than your odds of contracting Hantavirus in the USA. About 250 people get struck by lightning each year.
There are about 35 cases of Hantavirus per year in the USA, with an average of 12 deaths per year.
Honestly, why don’t we have a vaccine against lightning strikes yet?
You have a powerful disinformation machine that jumped right on this. Fine tune your messaging, optimize it for specific audiences - The people running US health agencies have been undermining the credibility of legitimate information sources for years. And their propagandists running much of US media now.
Yes, this! "For some readers, “low risk” reads as “do nothing”; what they actually want to hear is “low risk and public health is working hard to keep it that way.” A small distinction that turns out to be the whole game."
Really? Here is a quote I found on substack this morning (someone wrote an article about hantavirus):
"This essay is not about panic.
It is about what happens after six years of panic, contradiction, censorship, disappearing information, pharmaceutical money, expert sermons, and algorithmic fear.
At some point, ordinary people stop trusting the narrator."
Bingo.
oh yeah, I believe that. I've read several articles about how science communication should get better. And part of that is the thing above: giving us more information. Don't just say "don't panic," tell us why we don't have to panic (because the spread is slow, we've seen this virus before, and contact tracing is working). So maybe that sentence isn't the WHOLE game, but more "public health is working hard to keep it that way and here's how."
Yes, how public health ought to be working. :-)
Thank you for this very well researched and written report. I am an MD, and over the past several days family members have asked me about this. Very helpful
Keep up the good work. Please know that some non-trivial portion of the heat you are getting is in bad faith from people who are throwing rocks and mud for laughs or to specifically undermine your work. It's a reality of our new world.
Very informative post. Thank you so much. I cringe when I hear an official say "the risk to the public is low." The reality is that the risk to the public is low until it is not. I love the alternative phrasing "the risk to the public is low and public health officials at all levels are working very hard to keep it that way."
Love this. Thanks
This is the first source I go to when it comes to public heath. The MAHA hacks have completely taken away any trust I have of federal public health safety.
Great stuff. From a communicator at an LPHA, thank you!!!
Thank you very much for this insightful article on viruses and fears! I’ve taken the liberty of summarising the key points in an infographic and hope you like it.
Thank you for your article!
Also:
I am NOT implying that there is any concern for a Hanta Virus pandemic. However, there are MAGA & GOP people who are suggesting that people should obtain and use ivermectin to prevent and/or treat Hanta Virus. This is a public warning, please do NOT do that!
I was a nurse and EMT for several years. I have administered ivermectin to patients in the past, but only for parasitic infections and infestations—not for viral illnesses.
There has been discussion and some laboratory speculation about possible antiviral effects, including theoretical interactions with viral RNA or DNA. However, this has not been clinically proven, validated, or approved as a treatment for any virus.
Ivermectin is not a safe or effective treatment for viral infections. It is not indicated for COVID-19, SARS, influenza, or hantavirus.
That is the established world-wide medical consensus.
Please share/repost this. 🏥♻️
True, ivermectin has not been approved for viral infections. So what? We like to experiment. We have active patient communities sharing informal results of such experiments. Ivermectin has long been approved as very safe for human use, and guess what? The authorities lied to us with their "you are not a cow, you are not a horse" propaganda. Thank THEM for the loss of trust.
I shouldn't do this, but it's such a perfect example. There was ONE social media tweet. ONE. A single zinger about it.
And it turns into " The authorities lied to us ... Thank THEM for the loss of trust.".
Public health can never ever win against this standard, especially compared to whole massive lie-factory of outrage-mongers.
Haha. It adds up.
Why doesn't the owner of this stack do a post about all the lies the authorities told us during that debacle? It would be longish. And all our side would need to do is add the few that were missed. (I can dream.) :-)
Same reasons academics don't write up posts accusing historians of telling lies about the Holocaust.
Note: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5864309-rand-paul-calls-for-fauci-indictment/
Huh?
"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday called for Anthony Fauci, former longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to be indicted for what the senator claimed was his lying under oath about gain-of-function research."
The claims of "lies the authorities told" are attacks used by the anti-vaccine outrage-mongers to whip up the fear, uncertainty, doubt. It's basically throwing mud and hoping something, anything sticks. Because there's no downside to the mud-throwers from their base.
I don't believe today that we would ever get honest information from our government. In the event of another pandemic there will be panic, secrecy and paranoia while many many people die.
Like how they told us the first pandemic was over? Cause covid isn't over! The secrecy is already happening, as wealthy people take precautions like air purifiers and requiring their workers to mask, while the rest of us don't get a shred of that reality, being told it is over. Smh.
Health Canada, UK MHRA, European agencies, Australia's TGA
And US state health agencies - until they're crippled. And the handful of Substack writers helping us to navigate through all of the slop.
The American citizenary has as their president a convicted felon, habitual liar, the lastest example being he states that Pope Leo ascribes to statements that are demonstrably false...aka a lie!
I have exhausted the negative adjectives characterizing DJT & his clan of minions that individually & collectively have the singular goal of self-gratification.
It is no surprise the public have lost trust in their government & health institutions.
JJF Phm 🇨🇦
Even as many in public health are posting measured responses to this, in the conservative counties I work in I see many liked comments saying things like “here we go again” or “plandemic”. I can’t help but wonder what another actual pandemic would look like in terms of public response. Would there be some threshold in mortality rate that would actually get people to take it seriously? How much could people say that they don’t trust the data until the reality of their friends and family dying sinks in? Would it be too late to stop catastrophic spread?
Morbid thoughts I know but this lingering “haunting” will forever make me uneasy.
If it were really gross that would help get attention. Such as huge amounts of sputum, diarrhea, vomit or bleeding from orifices. COVID at first glance lulled some into thinking it was as serious as a common "cold". And mixed messaging from HCF's, PCP's, govt, etc made it impossible to sort through with confidence in anything.
Well, a good start would be skipping the place where you haul out endless scaretactics like counting "cases" of people who are not ill, in your face, 24/7.
What exactly are you talking about?
Huh? Weren't you there? Every time I went to check the news. Right on top.
Plus our health dept: Oh no! We have "cases!" We gotta do a curfew now!
Where? What cases? Where and how do you get those stats? Crickets.
How much do you understand about how public health works?
Cases were counted because someone was tested and tested positive. This was usually done by a healthcare provider, then reported to public health. Hospitalizations and deaths were also tracked. Cases are important to track regardless of severity of illness- it allows us to track trends, and knowing about cases can then allow contact tracing.
What would you have preferred?
I know what cases are.
Do you understand how trust works? Count the ill. Track contacts from the ill. Count the hospitalized. Count deaths, but honestly. Do not count deaths of gun shot wounds and traffic accidents where the person "had tested positive." I would have thought this would be... a given.
And give a very public number of the ill that qualifies as a "pandemic." I was unable to find such a number. I know of at least one high placed public health MD who resigned because she was pressured to declare a pandemic and she did not see the numbers.
I'm really trying to understand if you are engaging in good faith, because you are changing topics.
The deaths thing- you do realize that happened for like two weeks and was rapidly fixed right? Algorithms were set up to track someone who tested positive and then died within a certain amount of time. Once authorities realized that was too broad, they rapidly changed the definitions to catch true deaths. I saw this happen in real time. It is so fascinating to me how the first part was rapidly reported, but then the fix was not? An issue was raised, it was fixed quickly, that should build trust should it not?
The declaring a pandemic piece- I have no idea where you are getting that. Our only system of declaring a pandemic right now is done through WHO: https://www.who.int/news-room/speeches/item/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020
Sadly, you cannot win. There is no amount of nuance and careful communication and respect and etc etc which will save public health from the shameless liars stoking fear and outrage. The mathematical problem is that "low risk" events will *usually* not become a crisis. But every once in a while, the difference between "low risk" and "no risk", will be seen. Tactically, the hate-machine will say first "You said low-risk before, and you were WRONG". And then when "low" vs "no" happens, attack that.
By all means, fight the good fight. However, it's more about doing good for the sake of doing good, than victory from being pure of heart.
The "ghosts" of the early days, months & yr's of the CoVID pandemic are real & profoundly tragic for thousands of people.
However, science & medicine are messy & we don't always get it right. Yes, effective communication is needed & most often a learned skill... don't always get it right...as noted in your post, (we) don't always get it right, yet each of you were trying.
I don't have a Facebook act'n nor do I follow any other form of social media other than a list of credible, knowledgeable & passionate educators who post on Substacks.
The the recent events discussed have been documented to be that of hantavirus infections.
The Argentinan outbreak of hantavirus was found to be caused by Andes virus, one of numerous species of hantavirus.
Has there been genetic sequencing of the recent cases that show the virus to in fact be the Andes virus?
I may have missed this information but it is central to the question as to the 'risk' of those exposed to this species of hantavirus.
I am not implying any infection of hantavirus is not reason for concern (substitute any adjective), however there are cases that occur each year in the SW USA that never become national news.
JJF Phm 🇨🇦
Here is the story about the cruise ship inspectors. It was NOT originally 12 inspectors. That is all that now remain. Also note the lead epidemiologist for the program was laid off. The CDC is not being truthful.
https://share.google/vTFs9b26NB14uNzWF
Here’s the exact message we received from a trusted source- Fired But Fighting (with permission to share)
That article looks informative, but those firings had been reported from non regime-captured sources. I consider CBS a notch better than Fox (for now).
Just picked this up on some website: :-)
Your odds of being struck by lightning are more than seven times greater than your odds of contracting Hantavirus in the USA. About 250 people get struck by lightning each year.
There are about 35 cases of Hantavirus per year in the USA, with an average of 12 deaths per year.
Honestly, why don’t we have a vaccine against lightning strikes yet?
Very well said! TY
You have a powerful disinformation machine that jumped right on this. Fine tune your messaging, optimize it for specific audiences - The people running US health agencies have been undermining the credibility of legitimate information sources for years. And their propagandists running much of US media now.
Too negative?