>So grateful for all you do to help not only public health folks, but all with specific areas of expertise to do a MUCH better job of public-facing communications.
>Every line of this is excellent, though I do have a personal favorite😎: “Under 1000 words. Bullet points. Bold. Headings. (The book Smart Brevity changed my perspective dramatically).”
Couldn’t agree more (I’m a retired editor/proofreader). I used to work with mechanical and electrical engineers, translating their work into a form the average person could understand. During the pandemic I was just going crazy because I could see what was happening: the scientists were speaking their language, politicians were speaking their language and their target audience couldn’t understand any of it. Remember the story of the Tower of Babel? Things were great until everyone suddenly started speaking different languages, then what they created fell into ruin. I believe all stakeholders (politicians, scientists, and average Americans) need to work together to create messaging that’s accurate, easy to understand, and accessible.
As a long time Med device marketer my opinion is that the scientific community does some amazing research and some horrible communications. They need some Marketing Communications experts who can help with proper messaging for the community as a whole.
As a public relations practitioner specializing in public health and health communications, THANK YOU! Thank you for recognizing this and sharing it. I assure you none of us are laughing at your post, but forwarding it to our colleagues and saying "Look! Someone else gets it!”
Misinformation (wrong information that's accidentally spread as truth) and disinformation (intentional spread of incorrect and misleading information) are different and when they occur we should call it what it is. I can understand not using the term 'conspiracy theory' but if we aren't calling attention to what is misinformation and disinformation, we aren't helping anyone. If everyone is saying X is true when the reality is that y is true and X is misinformation we need to say so. How else to we combat it if we don't call it what it is?
You wrote: "Misinformation is a huge challenge, but proactive communication is even more critical. We can’t just put out fires but need to prevent them." So are you advocating for more of the censorship that was done on social media regarding COVID 19 issues? The kind of censorship that was done to factual statements which were censored merely because they cast doubt on public health policies and goals? That happened. And many of us don't like it. I don't think factual statements can be considered misinformation.
"Trusted messengers are everything." and then the next bullet point: "You will get things wrong. Own it." CDC director Walensky said if you get COVID shots you will not get COVID. A long time later we found out she knew that was not true when she said it. When questioned by a congressional committee about this she said something like "well, it was mostly true at the time." That's not owning it. That's lying. It's a good thing she resigned. As you know by now, the public want's the whole truth, not something that is "mostly" true.
What about the continued mandates for COVID shots? Some colleges require them, some don't. Some health care workers have mandates, some don't. I don't see you writing anything about COVID shot mandates and if they should continue. These mandates are public health policies that have a great effect on people's lives.
An excellent summary on the importance of communication in a public health crisis and how to do it right. One of your points that I'd like to emphasize is this: "Communicating uncertainty is a must. What do you know? But more importantly, what do you not know?" Speaking as someone who studied COVID-related messaging across the political spectrum, I believe that the relative lack of clear and repeated explanations by the most prominent US public health spokespersons of the extent to which the government's well-intended actions and guidance was based on hypotheses (as opposed to sound facts) was perhaps the single largest factor in the wave of distrust of authorities that has swept over the American sociopolitical landscape since 2020, and that will continue to undermine public health for years to come.
I'm a mostly retired state public health agency bureau chief, brought back during the pandemic. I like this post a lot but it leaves important points out! You're wrong about a couple of things, Dr Jetelina: a) Good public health local leaders spend as much time as they have available working on communication, to their agency and the public, but a good deal of that effort is finding channels of communication. We communicate with the people we serve most effectively via news media, at least in my state, and to do that we must cultivate the science and health reporters who decide what gets on the air or (in the old days) printed. I worked at that. What you say is certainly true: we didn't communicate nearly enough, and left out important elements. But we need more communication channels.
b) We are often trained in "crisis communication" and how to talk with reporters - there are at least two very good researchers/experts in this field whose training I found very helpful. You might talk about that field in a future post.
c) The communication that must be done cannot be only done by communication professionals - it's often best done by the local public health practitioners and scientists themselves. This is because they are the potential "trusted sources" and know the whole detailed story, thus how to best put it into words that are both understandable and correct....if they have that skill, which is trainable.
Thank you for these wonderful translations of the science. They are widely read in my agency.
A lesson learned after graduation from one of the giants in my field, Dentistry, was "The challenge for the dentist is to motivate patients to want what they need". It's different from "sales" which focuses on the needs of the provider rather than the patient. A skill not taught.
Good list. I would add something learned from another Substack author, Jim Fallows, who is also a pilot and writes frequently about near-miss air disasters--controllers and pilots succeed in getting planes down safely by speaking exactly the same language to each other. When one or the other is off, even by a bit, they will self-correct and clarify.
I communicate with about 60 people a day between visits, phone calls, and messages through the EMR. A lot of these points apply well to individual communication, too.
Particularly like this: “Always furnish solutions. Include a call to action.”
I can't agree more. We need to go a step further when it comes to this communication. We need retired volunteer scientists and people who understand these communications to join under a non-profit. I do not understand why there isn't an organization or group dedicated to that. Well, there is your group, but you are also busy with yoir "day jobs." Misinformation was used to create chaos effectively, and people died because of it. It can't get more serious than that.
The last thing that I want to say is that unfortunately few people can be trusted to stay fully informed. Few people have kept up with developments over the last few years. I have done my best to share new developments, but it gets frustrating because people moved on, and they want to pretend the pandemic is over.
Excellent insight and list. For the past 50 years I have been doing analytics without borders, for 37 years with IBM. I have been a member of INFORMS for most of those years. This community refers to communication as a critical soft skill. When we do an applied project in analytics, we have customers who we have to successfully communicate with - the approach - I am the expert just believe me is a one way tickets out the door. I would listen to public health officials and cringe when they conveyed that attitude in communication - especially given the uncertainty of the knowledge we had. Once arrogance is conveyed, trust is lost the first time a mistake is made. With all respect, these are rookie mistakes in the private sector. It isn't just training in how to communicate, it is developing a humbleness on what one doesn't know - which isn't part of the culture. The phrase follow the "data and the science" backed everyone into a corner. Regular people still remember the recommendation to handle packages with gloves and wash your groceries.
A lesson I've learned is that a large fraction of the American people do not believe that "saving lives" automatically wins an argument. e.g. reopening schools. The Right was cold-hearted towards those more at risk to the virus. But the Left precluded legitimate conversations about the trade-offs. I think this helped deepen the schism and increased distrust by the Right of the medical establishment.
So perhaps a willingness to be honest about trade-offs should also be on the list.
Brilliant-- you are so wonderful! I’m a physician and I took faculty development courses about medical education and the absolute best was from a dynamic palliative care pediatrician who taught us to keep it simple and no more “ death by PowerPoint”-- one hour and it made a huge difference-- to this day.
I have to comment, that when this all started, as a physician, as a scientist, I was baffled about what felt so obvious to me, a layperson in the world of pandemics and complex diseases like Covid.
That a virus could spread so quickly and effectively, and mysteriously at times, was so clearly airborne. That masks were important. I fully appreciated the need to spare the supply for us on the front line, even I struggled. Someone from the West Coast had n95s from the wild fires and overnighted me their small supply. The only real n95s I had for 6 weeks. I had 4 masks. I had to see patients. It was terrifying. People interpreted that lack of consistency as a lack of transparency.
I still don’t get it. That was more than just poor communication. I still really don’t understand the heck that was about. I find it hard to believe that it was not obvious at that time to the experts. It still baffles me.
Dr. Jetelina:
>YOU are a national treasure.
>So grateful for all you do to help not only public health folks, but all with specific areas of expertise to do a MUCH better job of public-facing communications.
>Every line of this is excellent, though I do have a personal favorite😎: “Under 1000 words. Bullet points. Bold. Headings. (The book Smart Brevity changed my perspective dramatically).”
Couldn’t agree more (I’m a retired editor/proofreader). I used to work with mechanical and electrical engineers, translating their work into a form the average person could understand. During the pandemic I was just going crazy because I could see what was happening: the scientists were speaking their language, politicians were speaking their language and their target audience couldn’t understand any of it. Remember the story of the Tower of Babel? Things were great until everyone suddenly started speaking different languages, then what they created fell into ruin. I believe all stakeholders (politicians, scientists, and average Americans) need to work together to create messaging that’s accurate, easy to understand, and accessible.
As a long time Med device marketer my opinion is that the scientific community does some amazing research and some horrible communications. They need some Marketing Communications experts who can help with proper messaging for the community as a whole.
As a public relations practitioner specializing in public health and health communications, THANK YOU! Thank you for recognizing this and sharing it. I assure you none of us are laughing at your post, but forwarding it to our colleagues and saying "Look! Someone else gets it!”
Misinformation (wrong information that's accidentally spread as truth) and disinformation (intentional spread of incorrect and misleading information) are different and when they occur we should call it what it is. I can understand not using the term 'conspiracy theory' but if we aren't calling attention to what is misinformation and disinformation, we aren't helping anyone. If everyone is saying X is true when the reality is that y is true and X is misinformation we need to say so. How else to we combat it if we don't call it what it is?
You wrote: "Misinformation is a huge challenge, but proactive communication is even more critical. We can’t just put out fires but need to prevent them." So are you advocating for more of the censorship that was done on social media regarding COVID 19 issues? The kind of censorship that was done to factual statements which were censored merely because they cast doubt on public health policies and goals? That happened. And many of us don't like it. I don't think factual statements can be considered misinformation.
"Trusted messengers are everything." and then the next bullet point: "You will get things wrong. Own it." CDC director Walensky said if you get COVID shots you will not get COVID. A long time later we found out she knew that was not true when she said it. When questioned by a congressional committee about this she said something like "well, it was mostly true at the time." That's not owning it. That's lying. It's a good thing she resigned. As you know by now, the public want's the whole truth, not something that is "mostly" true.
What about the continued mandates for COVID shots? Some colleges require them, some don't. Some health care workers have mandates, some don't. I don't see you writing anything about COVID shot mandates and if they should continue. These mandates are public health policies that have a great effect on people's lives.
An excellent summary on the importance of communication in a public health crisis and how to do it right. One of your points that I'd like to emphasize is this: "Communicating uncertainty is a must. What do you know? But more importantly, what do you not know?" Speaking as someone who studied COVID-related messaging across the political spectrum, I believe that the relative lack of clear and repeated explanations by the most prominent US public health spokespersons of the extent to which the government's well-intended actions and guidance was based on hypotheses (as opposed to sound facts) was perhaps the single largest factor in the wave of distrust of authorities that has swept over the American sociopolitical landscape since 2020, and that will continue to undermine public health for years to come.
I'm a mostly retired state public health agency bureau chief, brought back during the pandemic. I like this post a lot but it leaves important points out! You're wrong about a couple of things, Dr Jetelina: a) Good public health local leaders spend as much time as they have available working on communication, to their agency and the public, but a good deal of that effort is finding channels of communication. We communicate with the people we serve most effectively via news media, at least in my state, and to do that we must cultivate the science and health reporters who decide what gets on the air or (in the old days) printed. I worked at that. What you say is certainly true: we didn't communicate nearly enough, and left out important elements. But we need more communication channels.
b) We are often trained in "crisis communication" and how to talk with reporters - there are at least two very good researchers/experts in this field whose training I found very helpful. You might talk about that field in a future post.
c) The communication that must be done cannot be only done by communication professionals - it's often best done by the local public health practitioners and scientists themselves. This is because they are the potential "trusted sources" and know the whole detailed story, thus how to best put it into words that are both understandable and correct....if they have that skill, which is trainable.
Thank you for these wonderful translations of the science. They are widely read in my agency.
jerry.gibson.sc@gmail.com
A lesson learned after graduation from one of the giants in my field, Dentistry, was "The challenge for the dentist is to motivate patients to want what they need". It's different from "sales" which focuses on the needs of the provider rather than the patient. A skill not taught.
Good list. I would add something learned from another Substack author, Jim Fallows, who is also a pilot and writes frequently about near-miss air disasters--controllers and pilots succeed in getting planes down safely by speaking exactly the same language to each other. When one or the other is off, even by a bit, they will self-correct and clarify.
Well communicated communique about communication!
I communicate with about 60 people a day between visits, phone calls, and messages through the EMR. A lot of these points apply well to individual communication, too.
Particularly like this: “Always furnish solutions. Include a call to action.”
I can't agree more. We need to go a step further when it comes to this communication. We need retired volunteer scientists and people who understand these communications to join under a non-profit. I do not understand why there isn't an organization or group dedicated to that. Well, there is your group, but you are also busy with yoir "day jobs." Misinformation was used to create chaos effectively, and people died because of it. It can't get more serious than that.
The last thing that I want to say is that unfortunately few people can be trusted to stay fully informed. Few people have kept up with developments over the last few years. I have done my best to share new developments, but it gets frustrating because people moved on, and they want to pretend the pandemic is over.
Excellent insight and list. For the past 50 years I have been doing analytics without borders, for 37 years with IBM. I have been a member of INFORMS for most of those years. This community refers to communication as a critical soft skill. When we do an applied project in analytics, we have customers who we have to successfully communicate with - the approach - I am the expert just believe me is a one way tickets out the door. I would listen to public health officials and cringe when they conveyed that attitude in communication - especially given the uncertainty of the knowledge we had. Once arrogance is conveyed, trust is lost the first time a mistake is made. With all respect, these are rookie mistakes in the private sector. It isn't just training in how to communicate, it is developing a humbleness on what one doesn't know - which isn't part of the culture. The phrase follow the "data and the science" backed everyone into a corner. Regular people still remember the recommendation to handle packages with gloves and wash your groceries.
A lesson I've learned is that a large fraction of the American people do not believe that "saving lives" automatically wins an argument. e.g. reopening schools. The Right was cold-hearted towards those more at risk to the virus. But the Left precluded legitimate conversations about the trade-offs. I think this helped deepen the schism and increased distrust by the Right of the medical establishment.
So perhaps a willingness to be honest about trade-offs should also be on the list.
Brilliant-- you are so wonderful! I’m a physician and I took faculty development courses about medical education and the absolute best was from a dynamic palliative care pediatrician who taught us to keep it simple and no more “ death by PowerPoint”-- one hour and it made a huge difference-- to this day.
Thank you.
I have to comment, that when this all started, as a physician, as a scientist, I was baffled about what felt so obvious to me, a layperson in the world of pandemics and complex diseases like Covid.
That a virus could spread so quickly and effectively, and mysteriously at times, was so clearly airborne. That masks were important. I fully appreciated the need to spare the supply for us on the front line, even I struggled. Someone from the West Coast had n95s from the wild fires and overnighted me their small supply. The only real n95s I had for 6 weeks. I had 4 masks. I had to see patients. It was terrifying. People interpreted that lack of consistency as a lack of transparency.
I still don’t get it. That was more than just poor communication. I still really don’t understand the heck that was about. I find it hard to believe that it was not obvious at that time to the experts. It still baffles me.