Noting the difficulties ahead for distributing a vaccine to people who in some cases think it is a hoax, thinking people are proposing alternatives to the traditional public health messaging. Which only can be helped once we have the president on down giving science-based advice.
Let's say there is an alternative and perhaps in today's world we have to adapt to misinformation by taking broader approaches to public health messaging. I'm sharing that type of thinking below with the permission of the author, but still anonymous.
"I see two major hurdles ahead…the compliance issue you mentioned and distribution/dispensing operations (which includes trusting the vaccine). We need better compliance to allow us to focus on the bigger challenge ahead and to be better prepared for the vaccine when it comes out. Most of us who were involved in H1N1 in 2009 (or Smallpox in 2002) know the challenges ahead. We’ve known them since well before this pandemic started.
"I think the approach needs to be similar to what we’ve done for other public health campaigns for decades…identify the trusted agents in the communities, get them to believe, and then they become the deliverers of the message. I agree that in many communities wrapping this message in patriotism or 'doing your part' similar to what we saw during WWII is effective, but I’m not sure public health is the right organization to deliver that message. Society has attached the wearing of masks to political party affiliation and we need advocates at the local level (across the political spectrum) to help us separate that out. It’s not about doing it for 'you' but for your parents, family, co-workers, and friends. While at a national-level, getting consistency in messaging across organizations will be a challenge, we can engage local organizations to make the change. I know plenty of folks across the political spectrum across the nation that are in support of social distancing and masks provided they help prevent a total shutdown. There are groups willing to support social distancing and masks locally, even if their parent organizations won’t nationally. They can speak to their respective groups during virtual meetings and membership meetings.
"In other campaigns I’ve heard of groups engaging lots of 'traditional' partners such as faith-based organizations, schools, and community groups along with 'non-traditional' groups such as motorcycle clubs, rod and gun clubs, private clubs, schools (where students can take the message to their parents), and others. I agree this is a massive uphill battle and won’t be easy but I wonder if targeted outreach to some of these non-traditional partners can help us deliver the message more effectively. I’ll leave it to the health communicators to help determine what the message is, but it’s not about just about pushing the science but as Joe alludes to…there’s a 'hearts and minds' aspect to this that needs to be addressed.
"I agree that wide-spread mandates aren’t the most effective since they are hard to enforce and we don’t have the resources to do it effectively. As to the right carrots, I see two varieties of carrots needed. The carrots for organizations where individuals gather and then one for individuals themselves. While recognition from a public health authority may be helpful for an organization or business, I’m not sure that will change behavior at the individual level. Ideally, at an organizational level if there are tangible incentives such as regulatory relief or financial incentives those tend to be the most effective, but not sure which levers would be best pulled at this time. Similarly, I’m not sure there’s a token that a public health agency can provide an individual that would be meaningful enough to change behavior.
"Probably more questions than answers…"
