A few weeks ago, I wrote about feeling like I’ve been screaming into the void. At that point, our case numbers were skyrocketing, a child had died and the government was fully leaning into its new ‘individual responsibility’ approach to pandemic management as they geared up for the Tobago election.

After hitting “publish” on that one, I took a step back and decided my energy was probably better spent wrapping up the year and getting prepared for whatever insanity is awaiting us in 2022.

In the time since, the government went ahead and lost that election in historic fashion, changed protocols to allow vaccine combos, and then, just this past weekend, delivered the one-two punch of opening beaches (half day) and finally, FINALLY dropping a vaccine mandate for the public service. Given that the State is this nation’s largest employer, this is no small thing. Based on the vaccination numbers revealed during Saturday’s press conference (though certain segments of the public sector were conspicuous in their absence), I guess I understand why our healthcare system remains in the red zone:

These developments aren’t why I decided to take a break from my new year prep, though ending the year on an “I told you so” does have its own petty appeal. Rather, it was an article published by a local newspaper about the efficacy of the Sinopharm vaccine that’s been gnawing at the back of my mind since I read it yesterday morning.

In many ways, it’s just another iteration of the usual sensationalist fearmongering that used to be aimed at our nation’s ‘hotspots’ before Covid became the boogeyman de jour. It’s also very well-timed, given that lots of public servants will now have to line up for the vaccines they’ve been avoiding like the… well, you know.

What I find interesting about it is what it reveals about the ongoing approach to pandemic management from the communication perspective.

Once you get past the transparent nonsense of the first section masquerading as science and get into the meat of the article, it’s not saying anything new. The Sinopharm vaccine has long been known to be less effective than, say, the Pfizer. There’s also less data available about its efficacy against the variants. I know this because it’s what I read before I took my first dose of Sinopharm in August (which was somewhere around the beginning of the Delta days).

I didn’t read it in any of the government’s comms, though. I read it on the World Health Organization’s website and I read it in various articles from reputable publications that linked their sources. So I took my shot with the understanding that (given the hoarding going on at the time), it was my best chance at protection under the circumstances and that an efficacy rate of 79% is exactly 79% better than 0%.

Given the reaction to that local article and the fact that there are still folks running around declaring that the vaccines don’t work because vaccinated people can get COVID, I’m willing to bet that I’m in the relative minority there.

This brings me to what’s bugging me: the public outreach approach to this pandemic.

In the early days, when everything was still developing and no one knew much of anything, the approach of telling the public only what we needed to know (and what was relatively certain) made sense. Past that point, however, the lengthy hectoring press conferences repeating many of the same talking points and treating questions with condescension (or disdain) only served to create the very gaps into which articles like this one happily slide to create chaos.

Would people have felt nervous and hesitant to vaccinate if they knew that the one available was less effective (though not ineffective)? Sure, which is why that information would need to be accompanied by an explanation of why its efficacy would be sufficient if enough of us were vaccinated and continued to engage in safe behaviours. Would that have convinced everyone? Of course not. Nothing could in a climate where some are determined to see and promote certain conspiracies.

Omission, though, just gives fearmongers a chance to wrap their sensationalism around a tiny kernel of truth, putting the authorities on the back foot and undermining their efforts to do what needs to be done.

Which is what is happening right now.

Aside from the medical lab cited in the report unequivocally distancing themselves from the article’s claims, the Chinese embassy accurately condemned the report as “amateurish” and “irresponsible” and the Prime Minister dropped not one, but two Facebook posts, one of which suggested that the article might be criminal in its irresponsibility. It might well be and if it is, I imagine Dr. Rowley is well-placed to ensure that the appropriate consequences are doled out.

Whether or not that particular question ever ends up winding its way through our notoriously glacial judicial system, its intended damage has already been done. As Dr. Rowley pointed out in his first post, the obstructionism and fearmongering on display in that article are not new. They are, however, effective.

So maybe it’s time to finally take the advice of the Comms professionals who have so generously been offering it for months now and change the approach. Particularly as the public sector is already gearing up to fight for their perceived right to refuse to do what is necessary to finally end this thing.