Just posted this on the covid-19 thread. Long boring but I think important to consider
Matt Chorley @mattchorley
NEW: YouGov poll published by @thetimes reveals sharp jump in % who are "scared" about getting coronavirus, up from 24% two weeks ago to 38% in poll carried out since just before PM's press conference yesterday
More here t.co/GF2MDBj0L3
[rtb: since the press conference the consensus I've seen is the mood has changed further and people are even more scared]
New @YouGov poll also shows how much we are changing behaviour. With handwashing doubling (though still only to 61%) and more avoiding touching things in public, crowds, and tourists
55% back the government approach BUT it is getting more partisan:
Backing among Tories and Leavers is up, but down among Labour voters and Remainers
The culture war is still with us, apparently
James Morris @jamesdmorris
This is bad news. We don’t want behaviour change to be governed by political identity. The strategy decisions contain value judgments not just descriptive science, but we have to take partisanship out as much as possible
I think this is a really important thread and the politics about it are worth discussing - from a scientific point of view.
Firstly in any crisis of this scale having public trust is very important. It affects behaviour.
The government is heavily leaning and relying on behavioural science as part of its strategy. So trust as part of that is relevant.
We've already established that fear is an important part of behavial science and getting people to do things.
Why is the culture war relevant to covid-19?
We have two broad camps which have completely different outlooks on life. Most people are generally either in one camp or the other to a greater or lesser extent. For our national response to covid-19 to be successful Johnson needs to manage both camps and get both camps doing the right thing.
I'm going to term this as the 'Pro-government' camp and the 'government sceptic camp' rather than use other labels because I think it's better to do that rather than be more partisan at this stage.
In terms of behavial science, you would expect each group to behave in different ways.
The pro-government group think the government is doing the right thing and will largely follow what messages are put out because they have have levels of trust. They will do what they are told when they are told and think the government is doing the right things at the right time and there is no need to go beyond that. They are essentially state led who will take the least action until instructed not to.
Then you have the government sceptics. This group doesn't trust the government. They are more fearful as a result. They think the government should do more and are frustrated they aren't. Many will be trying to go beyond the current government recommendations where they can and will be acting independently to take action to limit social interaction without government prompting.
Now as much as I'm not a fan of Johnson, he has a good grasp of behavial science perhaps more than other politicians have. Both in the UK and abroad. Elections are all about political communication and behavioral science. And whether I like it or not, he has been more successful at it then others. I don't have to like him to know this. The failure of government sceptic leaders in the last few years is an inability to understand what motives people who arent like them and have been left completely baffled with behaviour and ideas that don't find their world view. Johnson to a certain extent understand both camps better even if its for his own personal advantage.
The pro government camp Trust Johnson but aren't really big on the whole apocalypse thing. They won't change behaviour unless they think it necessary and important. They are resistant to change. They have to be brought along slowly otherwise they will just throw up hands and refuse to comply or even be deliberately obstructive. Trust in Johnson is a massive deal here.
The flip of that is that the government sceptics more driven by fear and acting independently are initially doing more to stop the spread because they are proactive. The more fear and lack of trust, the more strongly they react. This is in terms of protesting online and actually changing behaviour. They are people who are happy and more open to change.
I think my point here is that both camps are important because you can't get away from the reality of the range in people being hostile to change through to those who embrace change. This is part of basic management principles on introducing change. You have to bring along the resistors as much as encourage the enthusiatic supporters of change.
In reality what this means is if you are a government sceptic who doesn't trust Johnson that's fine. You are being managed by fear anyway. The more tricky group to manage are actually the ones who trust Johnson because they are more resistant to change. If Johnson loses their trust that could be a problem further down the line. Johnson really can only ramp things up at a certain pace to keep the change resistors on board.
As a footnote to this, it's worth noting that in Hong Kong self regulated behaviour which has largely been put down to fear of a repeat of SARS has been thought to be a factor which has massively reduced infection rates there. They had already been trained in changing behaviour so didn't need to be managed in the same way.
In the UK the example of Hong Kong and the important of self regulated behaviour not needing to be enforced by authority primarily, could mean that in theory your political views could make a difference because they are affecting the way you behave.
Anxiety (or hysteria as it has been characterised by some) is an raw instinct based on survival. Fear as a driver is important.
Final footnote on this. The culture war is even more pronounced and more important to the US. Even more so because they have an upcoming election. Partisanship is normally much higher in the US and Trump is the king of partisanship. But up till about two days ago he wasn't remotely looking at behavioral science nor considering electoral impact. There is a big difference between how things are playing out in the US and here. Trumps 'insane' tweets about praying aren't crazy though. The penny has just dropped over there that actually Covid-19 is a problem for Trump. He has to lead the Christian right groups and appeal to things they understand to get the trust thing going so he can bring them along. Healthcare will be the defining thing of the US election and Trump has been caught off guard with it. He isnt leading the narrative. Trump talking about God, therefore isn't as nuts as its sounds. It represents the fact he's starting to try and manage one of his tribes that support him (the other tribes are the nationalists and the ultra neoliberalism business elite with a certain amount of overlap between the 3 tribes).
Anyone who think politics isn't important with reference to covid-19 doesn't understand how management of the disease is all about political communication.
Does this explain the difference between the WHO approach and the UK government approach. Quite probably. Is it a better approach which will be more successful in the long run? That's a different question. The issue is time or rather a lack of it. The behavioral science approach needs time to implement successfully. Whether we have the time to do that before so many people are infected that the health service becomes overwhelmed is another matter. It's questionable tbh.
I hope that this might explain a little of the friction of disagreements along the lines of politics or the idea of 'hysteria'.