COVID‐19 strategy might not work as planned. Ardern listened carefully to her Health Department and the 11 members of the Department’s expert advisory committee. She explored the costs, risks, and benefits of options and alternatives to strict control with these experts. The consensus was that none would work. The floodgates needed to be closed, recognizing the ultimate elimination of COVID‐19 would depend on developing effective vaccines.
Fifth, Ardern communicated her COVID‐19 strategy required a wide, diverse, and often painful array of control measures. She would listen carefully to stakeholders so these control measures could be tailored to local needs.
Sixth, despite myths about panic in disasters, she expressed confidence in the ability of her nation to come together. She created a campaign built on the theme, “Unite Against COVID‐19.” The campaign emphasized the need for people to band together to defeat the virus. The battle would require personal sacrifices, particularly some personal freedoms. Public opinion polls consistently showed Ardern a supermajority of the population supported her actions, including the lockdown.
Seventh, Ardern admitted to errors and mistakes, apologized for them, and committed to stop them from reoccurring. For example, testing for COVID‐19 in New Zealand had gotten off to a slow start, the initial Māori COVID‐19 response plan was flawed, communications for arriving passengers at the borders were unclear, and testing for security forces at the borders were inadequate.
Eighth, Ardern made extensive use of social media platforms to communicate information about COVID‐19. For example, she used multiple social media channels to communicate her message of social responsibility. During the lockdown, she encouraged everyone, including tourists, to stay home. The message was a twist from the usual tourism message encouraging visitors to New Zealand. Her postings about social responsibility were fueled by user‐generated content. Ardern used an advertising method, the slogan “Go Hard, Go Early” to create buzz on social media platforms. She created a simple, clear message that led with her values. This gave her messages an emotional impact.
Ardern was particularly effective in using her Facebook and Instagram postings from her home to show solidarity with her constituents. In one posting, she began: “Kia ora, everyone. I’m standing against a blank wall in my house – because it’s the only view in my house that is not messy.” She spoke directly to viewers using her phone at the end of each day, inviting viewers into her home. She wore a sweatshirt, her hair was messy, and she looked tired. New Zealander’s could easily identify with her.
When talking about COVID‐19 on social media, there was an obvious change in her tone, projecting herself as a listening, caring, and empathic mother. She was often joined by public health experts. Just as President Franklin Roosevelt used his radio Fireside Chats in the 1930s and 1940s to explain issues and policy to Americans, Ardern used social media to explain COVID‐19 issues and her COVID‐19 policies.
3.2.3 Characteristics and Limitations of Risk Management Regulations and Standards
Compounding nearly every problem that affects risk communication are beliefs by the public that regulations and standards are often too weak, that risk management authorities have, in the past, overpromised and under‐delivered, and that government and industry have often done a poor job in managing risk and communicating risk information. Perceptions of poor risk management and communication often lead to people overreacting or under‐reacting, taking inappropriate actions, and losing trust in risk management authorities.
Several factors compound these perceptions and problems.
3.2.3.1 Debates and Disagreements
Many technical, engineering and scientific professionals have often engaged in highly visible debates and disagreements about the reliability, validity, and meaning of the results of risk assessments. Many times, equally prominent experts have taken diametrically opposed positions on the risks associated with a diverse set of hazards and events. For example, experts disagree about the risks associated with nuclear power plants, hazardous waste sites, asbestos, electric and magnetic fields, lead, radon, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), arsenic, dioxin, genetically modified organisms, industrial emissions, childhood vaccination, climate change, terrorism, and contagious diseases like influenza and COVID‐19. While such debates can be constructive for the development of scientific knowledge, they often undermine public trust and confidence.
3.2.3.2 Limited Resources for Risk Assessment and Management
Resources for risk assessment and management are seldom adequate to meet demands for definitive findings and rapid regulatory action. Stakeholders are typically not satisfied by authorities’ explanations that generating valid and reliable data is expensive and time‐consuming, or that regulatory actions are constrained by resource, technical, statutory, legal, or other limitations.
3.2.3.3 Underestimating the Difficulty of and Need for Risk Communication
Resources for risk communication training, planning, implementation, and evaluation are seldom adequate. Resources include funding, staff, space, and equipment. Several reasons explain the lack of resources. First, many risk managers see little value added by risk communication activities, especially when compared to the value added by collecting additional technical data. Second, many risk managers do not see risk communication as a complex skill, let alone a science‐ and evidence‐based discipline. Third, risk communication is often seen as a relatively simple task, requiring little more than the ability to put an understandable sentence together. Fourth, many risk managers believe incorrectly that technical facts speak for themselves. They see the main job of managers is to get the technical facts right, tell people the facts, and explain what the facts mean. Fifth, many risk managers believe that credentials and experience alone (e.g., “I’ve done this all my life”) are sufficient preparation for producing an effective risk communication.
3.2.3.4 Lack of Coordination and Collaboration
Coordination and collaboration among risk management authorities are seldom adequate. In many debates about risks, for example, lack of coordination and collaboration has severely undermined public trust and confidence. Compounding such problems is the lack of consistency in approaches to risk assessment and management by authorities at the local, regional, national, and international levels. For example, only limited requirements exist for regulatory agencies to develop coherent, coordinated, consistent, and interrelated plans, programs, and guidelines for managing risks. As a result, risk management systems are often highly fragmented. This fragmentation often leads to jurisdictional conflicts about which organization or agency, or level of government has the ultimate responsibility for assessing and managing a particular risk. Lack of coordination, different mandates, and confusion about responsibility and authority also lead to the production of multiple and competing estimates of risk. A commonly observed result of such confusion is the erosion of trust, confidence, and acceptance.
3.2.4 Characteristics and Limitations of Traditional Media Channels in Communicating Information about Risks
Because traditional broadcast and publishing media – newspapers, television, radio, and magazines – are in the business of selling news, journalists favor stories that attract readers, viewers, and listeners. Stories about conflicts, disagreements, and inconsistencies attract media attention. Journalists also favor stories that contain dramatic material, especially dramatic stories with clear villains, victims, and heroes. Much less attention is typically given to daily occurrences.
In reporting about risks, journalists often
