Panic has been studied in depth by experts in the academic field of Disaster Management. Here's an article about it - I'll pull an excerpt. (2/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285716646_Disaster_Psychology_Dispelling_the_Myths_of_Panic …
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
"Although some disagreement exists on the exact conditions that evoke panic in individuals, researchers have identified key environmental and situational cues which generate and facilitate panic behavior. (3/
Prikaži ovu nit -
"These include: 1) perception of an immediate great threat to self and/or significant others; 2) belief that escape from the threat is possible, but routes are rapidly closing; (4/
Prikaži ovu nit -
"3) a feeling of helplessness in otherwise dealing with the threat, particularly when others are not seen as able to help (Auf der Heide, 2004; Quarantelli, 2008)." (5/
Prikaži ovu nit -
In most "crisis" situations (again, not a comment on this outbreak specifically), the fear, Part 1, is there. Once panic kicks in and starts driving political decision-making, public health professionals lose the ability to implement strategic, limited controls. (6/
Prikaži ovu nit -
And when people like Dr. Feigl-Ding, a nutritionist, start fanning the flames of "this is an apocalyptic conspiracy that no one is prepared for or can hope to control," which he's *still* doing, you get to Parts 2 and 3 pretty quickly, and people panic. (7/
Prikaži ovu nit -
So instead of planning interventions and dealing with the many nuanced dimensions of international outbreak response centering around a country the U.S. is in an ongoing trade war with, professionals have to spend time talking politicians out of doing human rights violations. (8/
Prikaži ovu nit -
If you read that article, panic as a common first response to fear/crisis is pretty rare. People are generally rational, generous, and helpful in crises. You only consistently see deviation from that when the circumstances for panic are present. (9/
Prikaži ovu nit -
And panic is really damn hard to put back into the bottle once it's been unleashed, to be honest. So people are very frustrated with EFD, and publicly refuting his asinine comments, *because* they know he's actively making people unsafe with his rhetoric. (10/
Prikaži ovu nit -
It’s also pretty clear at this point that the primary benefit of this for him is attention. He’s terrifying people and actively undermining the public health community’s response...for attention. As I’ve said before, public health is a *deeply* collaborative field. (11/
Prikaži ovu nit -
So it’s fair, normal, and genuinely part of public health professionals’ roles to tell EFD to get his shit straight and stop spreading panic and misinformation. Don’t tone police people over that; they’re doing their jobs. (12/12)
Prikaži ovu nit -
Quick PS: EFD has repeatedly touted his Harvard affiliation to boost the credibility of his statements. *Actual* infectious disease epidemiology professors at Harvard School of Public Health have clarified his position & soundly rejected his statements. https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1223387153645719552?s=21 …https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1223387153645719552 …
Prikaži ovu nit -
Another person who’s been abusing their perceived credibility is Laurie Garrett. She’s an established science journalist who’s been flagrantly and carelessly sowing panic since this began. https://twitter.com/isabelott/status/1221469770266169345?s=21 …https://twitter.com/isabelott/status/1221469770266169345 …
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.