Thread by @M_B_Petersen

2022 is the 3rd year of COVID & perhaps the last: who.int/news-room/comm…

The end will not be easy. Moving a public out of a crisis demands as much leadership as activating the initial crisis response

A research-driven 🧵 on a key challenge of 2022 & how to deal with it

(1/13)

The graph shows the % of Danes using masks daily from a N~400,000 survey from our @HopeProject_dk

The ups-&-downs reflect when authorities required masks. It is a case of optimal crisis behavior: Immediate strong compliance when needed. Immediate relaxation when possible. (2/13)

A coordinated public response requires (1) clear advice from authorities, (2) high levels of trust in that advice, and (3) shared feelings of threat. Studies of crisis responses thus find that trust & threat are their key causes: doi.org/10.1080/002239… (3/13)

Consistent with this, our data suggests that it is the high Danish trust in authorities that allows this flexible behavior: washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/…

Yet, as our data (👇) also show: This trust is much lower in many other countries. (4/13)

Furthermore, our research documents that trust has eroded throughout the pandemic as fatigue has increased:

psyarxiv.com/y6wm4/

psyarxiv.com/qjmct/

This graph, e.g., shows the drop in support for the political system in 4 countries over 2020. (5/13)

We are seeing some evidence that a lighter approach against COVID may erode trust further.

Danes' trust in the authorities' advice is dropping now, as cases have been very high but restrictions relative mild, given manageable admissions.
(6/13)

People have been used to swift reactions against rising cases for the past 2 years and have build-up concerns, routines and even identities around managing infection.

But as immunity increases from vaxx and infections, govs will & should react more lightly. (7/13)

When authorities decrease advice & communications, it opens space for interpretation. What is right, what is safe?

People will fill this space depending on personal views (e.g., journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.101…). The more concerned will react differently than the less concerned. (8/13)

This increased variability will intensify between-citizens conflict.

Our research shows that there has been widespread shaming of others during covid. Those who do more will shame those who do less: psyarxiv.com/3rczg/ (9/13)

So, what to do?

The key is: communicate, communicate, communicate. Continue to communicate why the strategy is changing; how the strategy will help us cope, even as restrictions become lighter; and talk conflict down, not up. (10/13)

We have emerging evidence that it *is* indeed possible to talk conflict down.

For example, this graph from our research shows that the share of Danes shaming the unvaxxed decreased from 60% to 40% after a month of public debate on this exact issue. (11/13)

Lockdown in the face of a massive wave is easy: The behavioral recipe is clear and so is the threat. The beginning of the end of the pandemic is much more difficult on both accounts.

It is key that govs do not confuse lighter interventions with lighter communication. (12/13)

Finally, it is important to remember that all the above depends on omicron being milder, whether due to inherent less virulence or due to higher immunity. Furthermore, it also depends on the completion of an even greater task: Ensuring global vaccine equity. (13/13)