In a Press Briefing, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Seeks Common Ground in the Fight against the Coronavirus

World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus spoke to the press once again, at a press conference in Geneva on August 31, 2020. Making a more direct statement than a few days ago, Ghebreyesus talked about the conflict between people who think that it is more important to contain the novel coronavirus and those who instead wish to open up their nation’s economy. Ghebreyesus’ simple thesis was that we need to do both. In a remarkably persuasive presentation, he expressed sympathy for people who want to open up the economy, saying that he shared their goals, but he explained that economies can only recover if the pandemic is controlled. Like all first-rate persuasive speakers, he sought common ground with his critics.

Earlier Post: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ Positive Approach to Fighting the Coronavirus

First, he expressed sympathy for the people who criticize public health measures. “Eight months into the pandemic,” he explained, “we understand that people are tired and yearn to get on with their lives. We understand that countries want to get their societies and economies going again.” He assured the press that “that’s what WHO wants too.” He acknowledged that restrictions “have taken a heavy toll on livelihoods, economies and mental health.” He supported “efforts to re-open economies and societies” and “to see children returning to school and people returning to the workplace.”

Of course, there’s always a catch: Ghebreyesus warned that “we want to see it done safely.” He warned that “no country can just pretend the pandemic is over.”

Obviously aware that many people, including in the United States, have downplayed the novel coronavirus’ severity, he pointed out that “The reality is that this coronavirus spreads easily, it can be fatal to people of all ages, and most people remain susceptible.”

Then came his punch line, where he gave a solution that combined the economic and public health goals: “The more control countries have over the virus, the more they can open up.”


“The more control countries have over the virus, the more they can open up.”

Second, Ghebreyesus offered a four-part solution:

(a) He said that nations must “prevent amplifying events.” He explained that the coronavirus “spreads very efficiently among clusters of people.” He noted the terrible outbreaks that occurred when people gathered at sporting events, bars, and religious assemblies. Such events, he warned, might need to be temporarily delayed.

(b) He also warned that especially vulnerable people such as the elderly, people with pre-existing risk factors, and “essential workers” need special protection.

(c) Third, he advised that every individual person must help, by staying a few feet apart from one another, washing hands, wearing a mask, and practicing “respiratory etiquette.” I have never heard such a nice way to ask people not to cough into one another’s faces.

(d) Finally, he discussed the importance of government action “to find, isolate, test and care for cases, and trace and quarantine contacts.”

In the United States, conservatives often protest against wholesale closings. Since we hear so much opposition to basic public health measures, Ghebreyesus wisely remarked that nations can avoid wholesale closings “if countries take temporary and geographically-targeted interventions.”

Ghebreyesus then cited Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, who had said that worldwide cooperation was the only way to overcome the international pandemic.

During times of stress, like a pandemic, people often want to hide from the rest of the world. In contrast, Director-General of the World Health Organization emphasized how important it is for all of us to cooperate to achieve goals. Those goals, he wanted us to see, are often perceived to be incompatible when they are, in fact, the same.

I could never have asked for one of my public speaking students to give a better-organized persuasive speech. Ghebreyesus identified and sympathized with the WHO’s critics, stated the problem concisely and sharply, and then offered solutions that would achieve everyone’s goals.

Ghebreyesus’ speech, like the briefing he gave a few days ago, was persuasive, thoughtful, and conciliatory. He gave well-informed opinions that deserve all our attention. Once again, however, the United States’ press gave him remarkably little publicity. Instead, we are hearing reports in which the President of the United States, of all people, discusses shadow people, soup bag-throwing, and mysterious black-suited people on airplanes. The press exalts in this nonsense even as it ignores valuable information like what the World Health Organizations provides.

It is time for the world to listen to people who know what they are talking about. I hope people listen Ghebreyesus’ speech. I hope we pay attention this time.



Theoretical note: a theory of communication called agenda-setting says that the press’ number one effect is not to tell us what to think, but what to think about. We in the United States are mostly thinking, favorably or unfavorably, about President Donald’s bizarre statements and odd behavior. Conservatives are also thinking about political vandalism presumably committed by left-wing extremists. That’s because these are the things that the press reports the most. But we are not thinking about basic public health measures, about which the press tells us little. Yet which is more important right now?

Image: CDC Facebook page

People Believe That Trump Could/Could Not Have Predicted the Coronavirus

Coronavirus Test Force, White House photo

Many strange things are occurring in President Donald Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force press briefings, which have become almost daily events: broken promises, attacks on the news media, and outright falsehoods. But let us zoom in on Trump’s number one responsibility-avoidance theme: Trump defends his anemic response to the coronavirus pandemic by saying that no one could have predicted it. How could he be ready for something that no one could predict? Here’s what he said yesterday when asked about major shortages of medical supplies:

“And when this is over, we’re going to be fully stockpiled, which they would have never been, except for a circumstance — this was — this was something that nobody has ever thought could happen to this country.  I’m not even blaming — look, we inherited a broken situation, but I don’t totally blame the people that were before me and this administration.  Nobody would have ever thought a thing like this could have happened.”

Let us focus on Trump's key idea: “this was something that nobody has ever thought could happen to this country.” He repeated it to make sure we didn’t miss it: “Nobody would ever have thought thing like this could have happened.”

I’ll make two points: the first, which the news media outlets have already pointed out, is that the pandemic was predicted. My second point is that Trump’s persuasive tactic capitalizes on an important feature of human psychology.  We often neither fear nor prepare for events that are unlikely. Instead, we tend to be prepared for, and sometimes fear, predictable everyday events. So, Trump’s point that no one could have predicted this event is wrong but potentially convincing.

Yes, people did predict this

Public health authorities have known for many years a viral pandemic could happen at any time.  The Central Intelligence Agency published a report more than 20 years ago entitled, “The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States.” The title is self-evident. The report listed several ways that diseases of foreign origin could make their way to the United States. More recently, the United States government knew that the novel coronavirus was circulating in December. Intelligence agencies warned President Trump about the novel coronavirus in January. 

Trump was wrong. It was not just possible to predict a pandemic. The pandemic was, in fact, predicted.

People don’t worry about rare dangers

Remote dangers are hard to think about. Most of us worry about paying the bills, going to the doctor if we have a cold, planning our next vacation, or getting the roof fixed. We face many common, everyday dangers: drunk drivers, heart disease, school shooters, and phony Nigerian princes. Many dangers, however, are rare in our daily lives. A nearby supernova could sterilize the planet. We don’t worry about that too much because a nearby supernova is incredibly unlikely. Consider hurricanes, which pose a more likely danger. I live on the Texas coast. A hurricane could wipe out my neighborhood this fall or the next. I still don’t worry about it a whole lot; it is likely that there will be a bad hurricane next summer or fall, but the odds that it will hit my neighborhood as opposed to some other place in any given year are slim.

The way our brains are wired, we don’t think very much about events that are unusual. But think of it this way. It is unlikely that a hurricane will hit my house next year. It is, however, very likely that a hurricane will hit my house in the next century. We just don’t know when. It could happen in 2020, or it might happen in 2080. It is unlikely that an asteroid will strike the earth during this century, but much more likely that one could hit in the next million years. We just don’t know when. The same is true of a pandemic. A pandemic is certain to occur at some point. Microbes will have their day. But there was no good reason 12 months ago to think that a pandemic would hit this year as opposed to some other year.

Sometimes, however, people do plan for unlikely events. If a state lottery has a big jackpot, people line up by the millions to buy lottery tickets. It’s unlikely that they will win. Sergeant Scott Moore asked Mila Kunis to go to the Marine Ball with him. Seemed unlikely, but she said yes.

What about unlikely epidemics? Modern science has given humanity an edge over many microbes. Public sanitation and modern antibiotics have almost defeated the bubonic plague. We have vaccines for mumps, measles, chickenpox, and the flu. All the same, occasionally, the microbes get an edge on us and attack in force. The 1918 flu pandemic almost killed my paternal grandmother. Even as Americans express skepticism about science, they still seem to think that our nation’s scientific prowess protects us against microbes. Maybe that is why Trump said: “this was something that nobody has ever thought could happen to this country.” Not so much that it couldn’t happen, but it could not happen "to this country.”

President Trump had plenty of warning about the oncoming coronavirus. He dismissed it, presumably thinking that the pandemic was unlikely, or maybe he had too much confidence in his ability to stop it with a travel restriction. Given his strong approval ratings, it seems likely that millions of Trump supporters agree that the pandemic was unlikely and do not hold him responsible for the lack of preparation. Indeed, if you follow right wing media, you’ll notice that many people still do not believe that the pandemic is a big deal.

So, how does Trump's excuse-making work?
So, the point is not that President Donald Trump was right to say that no one could have predicted the pandemic. Of course that is wrong. Instead, the point is that he did not expect it to grow big, and neither did his supporters. His supporters probably agree that the pandemic was not predictable and therefore have every inclination to sympathize with the president when he said that no one could have expected it. 

Psychologists and social scientists have written about psychological concepts like incredulity (a psychological effect that occurs when people don’t believe something that is right before their eyes) and extreme skepticism. Fact-based, hard-logic people would find Trump’s statement incomprehensible. Trump supporters are primed to believe him because many of them are skeptics themselves. For example, many conservatives still think that the coronavirus is a hoax or that the threat is not great.

Public speaking teachers advise their students to identify with the audience’s values and beliefs in order to persuade them. President Trump isn’t big on logic, but he is very good at identifying the values and beliefs that his core supporters hold dear. And one of the values that his supporters hold dear is that they don’t trust scientific experts. That is how his approval rating can rise right along with the pandemic cases. They can agree with Trump that no one could have predicted that a pandemic could strike the United States, and therefore are happy to overlook his weak response.

I found an old but interesting and clearly written incredulity study written by two top psychologists. And here is an important article about skepticism of scientific information about climate change. I suspect that skepticism about pandemic science represents a similar psychological mechanism in which people doubt scientific information that conflicts with their political opinions.