~laumann/laumann.xyz

21eab1d87488273f3f5ab30244594d83d3e9d8e6 — Thomas Bracht Laumann Jespersen 4 months ago cf62c92 master
post: On Communication around COVID-19 in Denmark
1 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

A _posts/2020-09-16-covid-19-communication-dk.md
A _posts/2020-09-16-covid-19-communication-dk.md => _posts/2020-09-16-covid-19-communication-dk.md +90 -0
@@ 0,0 1,90 @@
---
layout: post
title: On Communication around COVID-19 in Denmark
tags: [covid19, denmark]
---

Here in Denmark the official communication around regulations and
recommendations regarding COVID-19 has generally focused on the idea that "We're
in this together" and "Think about the potential consequences for others before
doing anything".

For example, I've seen posters recently with the line "Vær ikke den der sender
alle hjem" (Don't be the one that sends everybody home), which echoes this idea:
Any action you take may have unintended consequences for others, and you should
consider this.

It is understandable that the communication takes this form for a few reasons.
For one, it's preaching a highly social attitude which is something that Danes
are generally quite fond of (that's my opinion), but I don't think many people
actually practice (also my opinion). It is also easier to communicate ideals
than orders - but I don't think this approach is very effective though.

In an individualistc society (which I would argue we're living in) there's
little focus on the general "We".

#### An individualistic approach

What if we argued from a point of selfishness? You should consider before you go
out: You are exposing yourself to some extra risk and is it worth it? Do you
_need_ to out? Do you want to accept the extra risk to yourself?

The fact is that by staying home, you're not only reducing the risk to others
but also to yourself. The more you shelter yourself, the less likely it is that
you will contract the virus. I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about the
risk to Yourself and Others, instead of just Others.

#### Honesty and transparency

There is a risk that this line of argument and communication would reduce to
fear-mongering. This is another aspect of the communication I think the Danish
government is doing poorly.

I recently wanted to ask the question: "From time of infection, how soon can a
COVID-19 test show positive?". This seems like an obvious question and one I
thought would be addressed on the official Danish page on COVID-19
[^covid-smitte]. It's not though. I ended up calling two different hotlines and
being redirected once, before being told to write an e-mail to the Danish health
authorities (which I did and two weeks later there's still no reply).

(FYI there are generally two types of tests: A faster one that can only show if
you carry the virus now, and another one that can show if you were infected
because you have antibodies.)

The answer seems to be that it's not really known. Some people say it's around
24 hours after infection, others say after around four days. The honest answer
would appear to be "we don't know". Which is fine by me, I just wish they would
_address_ the damn question! I'm perfectly fine with being told that some things
are unknown instead of completely omitting the question so I cannot even be told
that we don't know.

The point I want to make is that I want the health authorities to be honest and
transparent about what is known and what is _not_ known.

There are a lot of things we don't know about COVID-19 yet. Long-term
effects from contracting the virus are still being discovered, and it seems
pretty clear that people react differently to it. You could even compare it to a
bad drug trip. Most people know - especially health professionals - that not
everyone reacts the same to a given drug. This is also true of medication (and
that's why they carry warning labels about observed side effects). Like taking
drugs, we don't yet fully know the consequences of contracting COVID-19 and,
like a bad trip, that is something I would imagine most people don't want to
find out.

#### Consider those you care about (including yourself)

I would say, as a yardstick for conducting yourself in a world where we are
suddenly forced into changing our thinking around social interactions, consider
not just Others, but Yourself and Those You Care About. It's much easier to
connect emotionally to the thought of your frail grandfather, or a sick aunt,
and consider how much new risk has been added to their world. Conduct yourself
to protect them. And it should also be acceptable to think about Yourself.
Conduct yourself to protect yourself.

We're all in this together - you included.

(There is a limited number of sources and references because I wrote this
off-line.)

[^covid-smitte]: [https://coronasmitte.dk](https://coronasmitte.dk)