3 ms·

Right, but stressing the importance of avoiding "hysteria and panic" is also extremely popular with authoritarian regimes justifying censorship and trying to co

Right, but stressing the importance of avoiding "hysteria and panic" is also extremely popular with authoritarian regimes justifying censorship and trying to cover up their own incompetence. There was a window of opportunity during which this virus could have been contained. The Chinese dictatorship has squandered it in the name of "avoiding panic and hysteria". Panic and hysteria should be avoided by being transparent, not by playing down the dangers or praising the efforts of an intransparent self-serving regime as the WHO has done from very early on.

simonh 7y ago
'But' what? Would you characterise the OP as avoiding being transparent, or playing down the dangers? Is anyone here acting like an authoritarian regime, or is anyone here saying anything contrarian to your point?
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  >Would you characterise the OP as avoiding being transparent, or playing down the dangers? Yes, I would indeed. gzer0's original wording, which has now been edited out (without comment), was: "Stay vigilant, stay careful, but most importantly, do not spread mass hysteria and panic" Now the wording was changed to: "Stay vigilant, stay careful, but most importantly, do not spread false information." I welcome the change, because saying that the most important thing in the face of danger is to avoid panic and hysteria is wrong and characteristic of authoritarian language.
tomp 7y ago
The West has also squandered its opportunity in the name of “non-discrimination” and “political correctness”. The right (with hindsight) response would have been to ban all flights / arrivals from China / Asia, but I guess that’s wrong-speak in the age of “open borders” as the only non-Nazi political option.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  I would suggest that being in favour of open borders for some purposes whilst closing borders in completely different circumstances for completely different reasons should be permissible even in our very polarised political climate.
- danielg6 7y ago
  What does non-discrimination and political correctness have to do with the white Americans that were evacuated from Wuhan lmao? And the ones that returned from China in general? Or for that matter, American citizens in general? Also, the U.S. has banned flights to/from certain countries during certain times.
  - pbourke 7y ago
    I also find it interesting that inside of the US, states are engaging in NIMBYism to keep evacuees from being quarantined. Alabama's senator boasted of this yesterday, and I believe there was a lawsuit or something in California blocking some patients from being quarantined at a particular location.
pbourke 7y ago
> Panic and hysteria should be avoided by being transparent, not by playing down the dangers or praising the efforts of an intransparent self-serving regime as the WHO has done from very early on. Yes. And the way to avoid it is to switch communication strategies to inform the public without inciting panic. Also to recruit people into being part of the solution at the local level. This could just mean signing up to volunteer to deliver meals, or check on neighbors or just report all's clear if there's a lockdown. The more agency that you give to people, the less panic there is. I found this article from two risk communications strategists, posted to the blog of a noted virologist, interesting: Past Time to Tell the Public: “It Will Probably Go Pandemic, and We Should All Prepare Now” https://virologydownunder.com/past-time-to-tell-the-public-it-will-probably-go-pandemic-and-we-should-all-prepare-now/ https://virologydownunder.com/past-time-to-tell-the-public-i...

simonh 7y ago

'But' what? Would you characterise the OP as avoiding being transparent, or playing down the dangers? Is anyone here acting like an authoritarian regime, or is anyone here saying anything contrarian to your point?

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
>Would you characterise the OP as avoiding being transparent, or playing down the dangers? Yes, I would indeed. gzer0's original wording, which has now been edited out (without comment), was: "Stay vigilant, stay careful, but most importantly, do not spread mass hysteria and panic" Now the wording was changed to: "Stay vigilant, stay careful, but most importantly, do not spread false information." I welcome the change, because saying that the most important thing in the face of danger is to avoid panic and hysteria is wrong and characteristic of authoritarian language.

tomp 7y ago

The West has also squandered its opportunity in the name of “non-discrimination” and “political correctness”. The right (with hindsight) response would have been to ban all flights / arrivals from China / Asia, but I guess that’s wrong-speak in the age of “open borders” as the only non-Nazi political option.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
I would suggest that being in favour of open borders for some purposes whilst closing borders in completely different circumstances for completely different reasons should be permissible even in our very polarised political climate.
danielg6 7y ago
What does non-discrimination and political correctness have to do with the white Americans that were evacuated from Wuhan lmao? And the ones that returned from China in general? Or for that matter, American citizens in general? Also, the U.S. has banned flights to/from certain countries during certain times.
- pbourke 7y ago
  I also find it interesting that inside of the US, states are engaging in NIMBYism to keep evacuees from being quarantined. Alabama's senator boasted of this yesterday, and I believe there was a lawsuit or something in California blocking some patients from being quarantined at a particular location.

pbourke 7y ago

> Panic and hysteria should be avoided by being transparent, not by playing down the dangers or praising the efforts of an intransparent self-serving regime as the WHO has done from very early on. Yes. And the way to avoid it is to switch communication strategies to inform the public without inciting panic. Also to recruit people into being part of the solution at the local level. This could just mean signing up to volunteer to deliver meals, or check on neighbors or just report all's clear if there's a lockdown. The more agency that you give to people, the less panic there is. I found this article from two risk communications strategists, posted to the blog of a noted virologist, interesting: Past Time to Tell the Public: “It Will Probably Go Pandemic, and We Should All Prepare Now” https://virologydownunder.com/past-time-to-tell-the-public-it-will-probably-go-pandemic-and-we-should-all-prepare-now/ https://virologydownunder.com/past-time-to-tell-the-public-i...