it seems like when people perceive a set of pandemic rules to be illogical or inconsistent, they're more likely to conclude that all the rules should be loosened (to match the most lenient of the rules) rather than tightened (to match the most stringent of the rules)

anyway I keep thinking of the incredible, thoughtful series of 25 pandemic standby messages that peter sandman and jody lanard crafted back in 2007, which they recommended that governments release in the event of a pandemic. especially this one, #23: http://www.psandman.com/col/panflu4-3.htm#msg23

some more gems from sandman and lanard's 2007 recommendations for pandemic messaging that I think about daily — the importance of giving a rationale for rules, of preparing the public to care for their own loved ones, and of not over-selling prevention measures

I've thought about sharing sandman and lanard's work many times over the months, but held back because I simply couldn't bear the contrast between the maturity, humanity and candor of their messages and the ineffectual mealy-mouthed shit our governments have spouted at us instead

I also appreciate sandman and lanard's advice that governments reconsider their 'metamessaging' — which would actually require governments to reconsider their own unspoken, unexamined assumptions about governance, and about the public itself

another recurring theme throughout sandman and lanard's recommended pandemic messaging — which is starkly absent from actual government messaging — is getting people to think socially instead of individualistically, and depend more on each other and less on government systems

it reminds me of this — the total lack of aspiration around what citizens can be and do https://twitter.com/pangmeli/status/1176652670972702720

I also find it sort of funny that sandman and lanard recommend that western governments read old wartime speeches to learn how to talk people through a crisis because today's officials are just used to, like, developing and presenting informational bullet points lol