COVID-19 testing decisions and behaviours in two Australian cities.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: High levels of testing are crucial for minimising the spread of COVID-19. The aim of this study is to investigate what prevents people from getting a COVID-19 test when they are experiencing respiratory symptoms. METHODS: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 14 purposively sampled adults between 20 November 2020 and 3 March 2021 in two capital cities of Australia and analysed thematically. The analysis included people who reported having respiratory symptoms but who did not undergo a COVID-19 test. RESULTS: Participants appraised risks of having COVID-19, of infecting others or being infected whilst attending a testing site. They often weighed these appraisals against practical considerations of knowing where and how to get tested, inconvenience or financial loss. CONCLUSIONS: Clear public health messages communicating the importance of testing, even when symptoms are minor, may improve testing rates. Increasing the accessibility of testing centres, such as having them at transport hubs is important, as is providing adequate information about testing locations and queue lengths. SO WHAT?: The findings of our study suggest that more needs to be done to encourage people to get tested for COVID-19, especially when symptoms are minor. Clear communication about the importance of testing, along with easily accessible testing clinics, and financial support for those concerned about financial impacts may improve testing rates.

Disagreement among experts about public health decision making: is it polarisation and does it matter?

It is common for aspects of the COVID-19 response-and other public health initiatives before it-to be described as polarised. Public health decisions emerge from an interplay of facts, norms and preferred courses of action. What counts as 'evidence' is diverse and contestable, and disagreements over how it should be interpreted are often the product of differing choices between competing values. We propose a definition of polarisation for the context of public health expertise that acknowledges and accounts for epistemic and social values as part of evidence generation and its application to public health practice. The 'polarised' label should be used judiciously because the descriptor risks generating or exacerbating the problem by oversimplifying complex issues and positions and creating groups that seem dichotomous. 'Independence' as a one-size-fits-all answer to expert polarisation is insufficient; this solution is premised on a scientistic account of the role of evidence in decision making and does not make room for the value difference that is at the heart of both polarisation and evidence-based decision making.

Response-Liminality and the Mirage of Settlement.

Little and colleagues' (1998) paper describing a key aspect of cancer patients' experience, that of "liminality," is remarkable for giving articulation to a very common and yet mostly overlooked aspect of patient experience. Little et. al. offered a formulation of liminality that deliberately set aside the concept's more common use in analysing social rituals, in order to grasp at the interior experience that arises when failing bodily function and awareness of mortality are forced into someone's consciousness, as occurs with a diagnosis of cancer. We set out the reasons as to why this analysis was so significant in 1998-but we also consider how the "liminality" described by Little and colleagues was (as they suggested) a feature of modernity, founded on what we term "the mirage of settlement." We argue that this mirage is impossible to sustain in 2022 amid the many forms of un-settling that have characterized late modernity, including climate change and COVID-19. We argue that many people in developed nations now experience liminality as a result of the being forced into the consciousness of living in a continued state of coloniality. We thus rejoin the social aspects of liminality to the interior, Existential form described by Little et. al.

Risk Communication Should be Explicit About Values. A Perspective on Early Communication During COVID-19.

This article explores the consequences of failure to communicate early, as recommended in risk communication scholarship, during the first stage of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia and the United Kingdom. We begin by observing that the principles of risk communication are regarded as basic best practices rather than as moral rules. We argue firstly, that they nonetheless encapsulate value commitments, and secondly, that these values should more explicitly underpin communication practices in a pandemic. Our focus is to explore the values associated with the principle of communicating early and often and how use of this principle can signal respect for people's self-determination whilst also conveying other values relevant to the circumstances. We suggest that doing this requires communication that explicitly acknowledges and addresses with empathy those who will be most directly impacted by any disease-control measures. We suggest further that communication in a pandemic should be more explicit about how values are expressed in response strategies and that doing so may improve the appraisal of new information as it becomes available.

How risk communication could have reduced controversy about school closures in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although there has been consistent evidence indicating that school closures have only limited efficacy in reducing community transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the question of whether children should be kept home from school has attracted extensive and often divisive public debate in Australia. In this article we analyse the factors that drove high levels of concern among parents, teachers and the public and led to both demands for school closures in late March 2020, and to many parents' reluctance to return their children to school in May 2020. We discuss how the use of well-established principles of risk communication might have reduced much of this community concern. Then we set out a range of practical suggestions for communication practices that build trust and hence diminish concerns in relation to managing schools over the long term of the COVID-19 pandemic.