Coronavirus doesn't sound so bad!

The thread running through my last few posts about how CDC is communicating (or not,) the Coronavirus is that medical experts are using their familiar medical terms, like “novel virus” that stand for, or signify specific important information (semantics). And, importantly, that there is little reason to assume that the general non-scientific public understands these significances. 

For example again,   “novel” or even “new” isn’t communicating that the virus is “fresh and new”, “something new that needs a name”, or “something that will eventually get old.”  In the epidemiologic world is “novel” stands for or signals a number of important medical/scientific issues: 

• what is known and not known about the virus; 
• how likely it is that there is a vaccine for it; 
• issues of natural immunity; 
• and importantly, that scientists are in an active period of potential uncertainty.  

You can see another straightforward example of this word vs significance problem in using today’s CNN article by Jacqueline Howard  “CDC director: Novel coronavirus 'is probablywith us beyond this season, beyond this year.”  

 Dr. Sanjay Gupta is talking to Dr. Robert Redfield, CDC Director explaining that “containment” of the virus is the current goal….

----- 

"The containment phase is really to give us more time. This virus will become a community virus at some point in time, this year or next year," Redfield said. "We don't have any evidence that this coronavirus is really embedded in the community at this time, but with that said, we want to intensify our surveillance so that we're basing those conclusions based on data."

-------- 

So here's the seemingly simple term- "community virus."

• Does that mean it will be limited to certain communities? 
• So it’s won’t be as bad as a city-wide, or state-wide virus? 
• Doesn’t sound so bad to me!  They always make it sound so much worse than it is!

What is lost on the average reader/listener is that this term SIGNALS a very important and frightening thing – when it becomes a community virus it will strike otherwise healthy people

At least that’s my understanding of how CDC is using it.

Why can't we start working to close the gap between experts and the public by unpacking what we say.  Put some thought into what it takes to understand what we say.  And then say it better?