ABSTRACT
The World Health Organization identified transparency in communication as one of the three best practices for controlling a pandemic, learned in the wake of the SARS epidemic of 2003. According to public health orthodoxy, the roles of communicators during a pandemic are to alert the public to the nature of the emergency, enumerate steps that authorities are taking, steps that the public should be taking, inform the public of key developments during the evolution of the crisis, explain some technical points, and lastly, assuage panic. But with the COVID-19 pandemic came the additional and unexpected role of combating misinformation and disinformation. As well, effective epidemic control includes the monitoring and management of imported infection; thus, border management becomes a critical policy. However, the counternarrative, spurred by COVID minimizers and disinformation merchants, likely compromised that response in some jurisdictions and exacerbated ideological divisions already present in society. In addition, basic innumeracy and a poor understanding of the nature of exponential growth impaired the ability of audiences to appreciate the gravity of disease forecasts. A rehabilitated approach to pandemic communication is indicated, one that not only meets the traditional public health goals of disease control but that is also hardened against the now likely presentation of targeted and well-resourced disinformation.
