Name: Why face masks became political in the US
Uploaded: 2020-08-22T18:05:13.000Z
Duration: 6 min 12 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

Unlike many of his colleagues, he often refused to wear a mask in Congress.

And then he tested positive for Covid-19.

But in an interview, he suggested that he got Covid-19 because of the times he did wear a mask.

"I might have put some of the virus onto the mask and breathed it in."

Gohmert's distrust of masks is actually shared by a ton of Americans.

A poll in July asked Americans how often they wear a mask.

Among Democrats, almost everyone said they wore a mask in public.

But significantly fewer Republicans said so.

Yet the messaging from public health officials today is clear:

Wearing a mask helps stop the spread of Covid-19.

So where did this communication break down?

How was something as simple as wearing a mask allowed to become political?

In October of 2001, the US bungled a different public health crisis.

Someone sent envelopes of deadly Anthrax to media organizations and government offices.

First, the Secretary of Health and Human Services went on TV,

and speculated about how the first victim might have gotten it.

"We do know that he drank water out of a stream…"

"Just because he was an outdoorsman, and there's a possibility...

"Can you contract anthrax from drinking from a stream?"

As the crisis continued, different officials gave different, conflicting information.

No one was really in charge of communicating to the public.

And it led the US Centers for Disease Control to make this:

the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication guide, or CERC.

It's a guide to how to communicate during a public health crisis.

The CERC guidelines are really a reflection of the lessons that were learned from failures.

Glen Nowak used to be in charge of communications for the CDC.

He's used the CERC and even wrote some of it.

And he says one of the biggest lessons from the Anthrax attack is what the CERC now calls

and the key to preventing mass confusion: having a single person as the spokesperson.

It really helps to have one primary voice.

The CERC says the spokesperson should be someone who is familiar with the subject matter, and

can talk about it clearly and confidently.

A lot of communications, particularly in a public health crisis, is about setting, guiding

It's important early on to not just talk about what you know, but what you don't know.

Essentially, the spokesperson needs to be seen as trustworthy and credible.

Which is one reason you don't want your spokesperson to be a politician.

Because it's really hard for any politician to be seen as credible by everyone:

They often only resonate with those who support them, and they don't resonate

That doesn't mean political leaders can't be involved in public health communication;

they just can't take the lead on the science.

A good example of a government following these principles during Covid-19 was in New Zealand,

where the Prime Minister was at many of the daily briefings, but wasn't leading it.

"As is our usual practice I'll begin by handing over to Dr. Bloomfield."

What's important is that everybody is on the same page with respect to the overall messaging.

But in the US, there hasn't been a clear spokesperson.

Press conferences were led by President Trump

and would feature politicians as well as public health experts.

"When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days,

Especially when it came to guiding those expectations:

"That could be a year to a year and a half."

These conflicts asked many Americans to pick a side:

Who do you believe - the president, or public health officials?

"Dr. Anthony Fauci seems to favor what the Democrats want..."

"Dr. Fauci, who appears to believe he's in charge of the country."

"It's important that we listen to our elected leaders -- not the medical bureaucracy."

That breakdown between public health officials and politicians can get especially dangerous

Which it almost always does during a crisis.

You need to remind people very frequently that you're going to be making changes based

and that as a result, it's going to look like you're being inconsistent.

But more importantly you're learning and you're learning what works best.

Early on, the CDC advised people not to wear masks.

But as they learned more about the new virus, they changed the guidelines.

We now know from recent studies that a significant

portion of individuals with coronavirus lack symptoms.

CDC is always, always looking at the data.

We've told you that from the beginning — Dr. Birx says it every single press conference --

we're looking at the data, we're evolving our recommendations."

But this shift wasn't supported by Trump personally.

"The masks, it's going to be really a voluntary thing.

You can do it, you don't have to do it, I'm choosing not to do it."

Soon, masks became the symbol of the war between Trump and the medical experts.

By June, more Republicans trusted Trump than the CDC for facts about the coronavirus.

It was exactly the scenario the communication guidelines had been written to avoid.

What's frustrating is knowing that many of the challenges are self-inflicted wounds

or they're things that, you know, could have been avoided based on past experience.

字幕リスト動画再生

Why face masks became political in the US

scenario

crisis

conflict

evolve