Vol. 17 no. 3 - September 2009

As we face up to the reality of a worldwide “swine flu” pandemic, we have an opportunity to reflect on our reactions to such a situation and how we communicate them.

While we anticipate and prepare for such an eventuality, there is a sense that we never quite believe that it will actually come to pass. But when it does, how good are we at responding to the threat? And how good are we at communicating the risks involved, and assigning the right level of proportionality to those risks?

It is always the case that mixed messages will exist in these circumstances, with competing sources giving out conflicting signals. On the one hand we are told that the current H1N1 virus is a mild one; on the other, we are confronted with alarming statistics about infection rates and regular updates on the number of people who have died from the virus.

Delivering accurate and responsible messages in the context of such a rapidly evolving situation is difficult. Coupled with this is an increasingly risk averse society for whom the idea of people dying from such a seemingly everyday virus as “flu” provokes indignation – we need someone to blame.

In fact, it is a reality check, and for two reasons: first is the fact that seasonal flu is in itself a killer, particularly for those with underlying medical conditions (although without the same publicity); secondly, it demonstrates the limitations of human intervention in the face of this type of natural threat. As medical professionals we should always be aware of the expectations placed upon us, but also be aware of our limitations. And indeed the limitations of what people can reasonably expect of us.

Dr Stephanie Bown
Editor-in-chief, MPS Director of Policy and Communications

Disclaimer: All information in this issue is correct at time of publishing (September 2009)