Every event has its own rhythms. In the case of a pandemic, it begins with uncertainty and fear. In these early stages, we see only the worst cases, and have no idea what proportion of actual cases they represent. Especially if it is a new virus, like the diablovirus, nothing is known about how contagious it may be, the methods by which it spreads, or any of the other parameters by which one can determine how best to deal with it.
As a result, public health agencies will almost invariably either over-react or under-react. Furthermore, the direction in which they err is almost invariably determined by the last major disease outbreak. In effect they are like generals preparing yet again to fight the last war.
As the course of the pandemic proceeds, early assumptions will often prove to be inaccurate, perhaps even wildly so. At this point, the authorities have choices to make. Will they alter their messages to fit the new data, or will they insist on sticking to their original messages and policies even after new discoveries have invalidated them?
There can be multiple reasons for a decision to persist with an official line that is based upon superseded science. Yes, fear of losing face in the eyes of the general public can be a real issue, particularly in cultures heavily invested in the notion that Authority Does Not Err, but it is certainly not the only one. Some authority figures can be worried that going back on one’s advice will end up sowing confusion, quite possibly leaving people unsure who they should believe. And some can believe that, if the existing advice is not actively harmful, it is better to avoid changing it unless the need to update is pressing.
In the time when mass media was entirely broadcast, with an effective monopoly of a small number of media sources over the information being broadcast, the argument of avoiding confusion might have still held some water. However, by the early twenty-first century, the monopoly once held by major newspapers, radio and television stations had broken down. People were as likely to look to well-known independent bloggers as to national networks for their news.
As a result, major media outlets following the old policy of soft-pedaling new information that contradicted their earlier messages actually ended up damaging the very credibility they were trying so hard to preserve. In the case of the diablovirus, many people became so uncertain as to what preventive measures would actually work that they would end up persisting in useless ones that felt comforting while ignoring ones that actually worked but failed to conform to their intuitive sense of how things ought to work.
—– Helen Cherwell, essay for Intro to Broadcast Media, Shepardsport, 2033.