{"id":1643,"date":"2020-11-05T12:06:08","date_gmt":"2020-11-05T12:06:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/iprblog\/?p=1643"},"modified":"2020-11-05T12:21:50","modified_gmt":"2020-11-05T12:21:50","slug":"stay-home-eat-out-and-other-mixed-messages-why-embracing-uncertainty-about-the-evidence-would-have-bolstered-covid-communications","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/iprblog\/2020\/11\/05\/stay-home-eat-out-and-other-mixed-messages-why-embracing-uncertainty-about-the-evidence-would-have-bolstered-covid-communications\/","title":{"rendered":"Stay home, eat out and other mixed messages: Why embracing uncertainty about the evidence would have bolstered Covid communications"},"content":{"rendered":"

Andy Dunne is in his second year of the Institute for Policy Research (IPR)'s part-time MSc Public Policy<\/a>. He is a Media and PR Manager at the University of Bath, promoting research and expertise from its Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and has worked previously in communications roles spanning policy and politics.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

When Boris Johnson spoke to the nation in his televised address on Monday 23 March to announce the first lockdown, his message was clear: \u2018you must stay at home\u2019<\/a>. This was a watershed moment in the early weeks of the pandemic; a response to alarming new modelling that showed the\u00a0potential scale of the crisis<\/a>\u00a0(Ferguson et al 2020<\/a>) without urgent action. After weeks of fragmented wrangling over timing and approach, an unprecedented decision had finally been taken and communicated.<\/p>\n

From \u2018Stay Home\u2019 to \u2018Stay Alert\u2019 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Overnight, government communications were rebranded and rolled out under the tagline \u2018Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives\u2019, translating current evidence about the risks into a compelling message (Garrett 2020<\/a>). Clear communications which resonated with the public (Reynolds 2005<\/a>; Bonnell et al 2020<\/a>) fed through to behaviour change\u00a0en masse<\/em> and an initial surge in support for the government\u2019s handling of the crisis<\/a> (YouGov).<\/p>\n

Clarity in communications, though, would be short-lived. As conditions improved and lockdown eased, messages about what people could and should do became hazier as infection rates fell and competing economic and educational pressures loomed large. \u2018Stay Alert, Control The Virus, Save Lives\u2019, introduced as lockdown eased, was widely\u00a0derided as confusing and unclear<\/a>,<\/u>\u00a0despite the\u00a0government\u2019s own claims to the contrary<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Ambiguity and tensions over \u2018the new normal\u2019 drew out many of the complex challenges present when considering how evidence informs decision-making and behaviour change. This interplay with communications matters: in the absence of a vaccine, our only weapon to stop rising infections is the public\u2019s willingness to listen and act upon the guidance<\/a> (Reicher 2020<\/a>). This, in turn, relies on their support and understanding of the rules, and their acceptance of the decisions guiding them.<\/p>\n

\u2018Led by the science\u2019 and mixed messages\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

While the government has taken every opportunity to assert that it is being\u00a0\u2018led by the science\u2019<\/a>, far less attention has been paid to what that mantra truly means. Clearly, it serves a communications function in rubber-stamping tough decisions, offering a reassuring degree of certainty and hope that experts are in charge, but it is misleading:<\/p>\n