Observations on the nCOV-2019 Situation

The crisis unfolding now over the Wuhan Virus (more accurately, the nCOV-2019) has been grabbing headlines, and certainly generating a lot of alarm. However, for those of us who have dealt with such situations before, it is really nothing new. It is always risky to make predictions at the start of an evolving situation, but I have some quick observations to make.

1. In terms of virulence, it is not exactly deadly. So far, there has been 54 deaths out of 1,610 confirmed cases. That is about 3%. Compared with SARS (9.6%) fatality rate, MERS-COV (34.4%!), the closest comparisons, so far, the situation is not especially dire. (Link: https://www.businessinsider.sg/china-wuhan-coronavirus-compared-to-sars-2020-1/?r=US&IR=T)

2. In terms of infectivity, China just announced 343 new cases. That represents about 25% increase. Yes, that sounds bad, but we have to keep in mind that there has been a sudden increase in resources devoted to screening and testing potential patients with the disease. Given the sudden surge in attention, it was not surprising the numbers increased, and not necessarily an indication that the disease is getting out of hand. (Link: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/china-wuhan-pneumonia-virus-54-dead-over-300-new-cases-12342346?cid=FBcna&fbclid=IwAR0bGsQn0WSiX0fhFvPyhzt4OQqqsZv1edo7XS3uGovZsQyqMFoZ7lg4XlA)

3. A lot of panic has to do with the way the situation is being reported. The sudden explosion of media reporting of a previously unknown disease (to the general public), together with videos of people falling over in the streets, bodies laying in corridors, and the sick lining corridors, are bound to alarm. Television anchors would repeat the latest figures gravely while talking heads would describe how bad the situation is. All these are not surprising, and certainly must be expected during a crisis. Still, they do contribute to a sense of alarm. 

4. The Chinese authorities do play a part. The reason why there is global concern is because a lot of people outside of China do not trust the Chinese government's data. They are concerned that the data coming out is not accurate, that there is a major cover-up. But I do not want to blame them exclusively. It has partly to do with the distrust of people elsewhere as well, especially in the West. They would similarly distrust authorities in, say, Africa (such as Ebola outbreak in 2014), or Mexico (such as the Mexican Swine Flu outbreak in 2009).

5. With the disease now being reported in six countries outside of China, we will soon have a more realistic picture of just how deadly or infectious this disease is. If it is shown that the spread of the disease is easily contained outside of China (unlikely given the nature of the disease), that the disease is not as infectious as people feared, and most importantly, not as virulent or fatal as the initial reports had led people to believe, the global wave of panic would subside, and people would lose interest eventually.

6. Frankly, the situation reminded me more of the Mexican Swine Flu outbreak of 2009. There was an initial surge in the numbers of cases as the authorities suddenly realize that they have a problem on their hands, and devoted resources to screening, identifying and treating the patients. The initial impression of the virulence of the disease made it seem especially deadly. Nations worldwide go into containment mode, trying to isolate suspect cases until more is known about the situation. All these in turn caused public alarm. In time, the situation stabilized and the public quickly lost interest.

From the observations above, if I were to be in a position to advise the Chinese government on how to handle the situation, there would be a few things I would recommend:

1. Given how a lot of concerns seem to arise more from the coverage of the situation, including the spread of images and videos through social media, rather than a clear-headed analysis of data, crisis communications should be a major element of managing the crisis.
2. Invite international experts from the World Health Organisation or the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention to come in and assess the situation. They will be seen as more credible. Setting national pride aside, this would help give more credibility to any data issued.
3. The same international experts could help stabilize the public panic. They might endorse the local authorities' efforts if they are doing well. I still remembered how the WHO gave Singapore a strong endorsement back in 2016 during the Zika outbreak here, which helped to reassure both the local population and international audience.
4. It is important to aggressively push back against misinformation on social media. Go after those who spread false information, including misleading images or videos. Make an aggressive effort to counter any fake news. The lack of aggression would perversely be interpreted as having something to hide.
5. Have news conferences where the international media are invited on the situation. Update and explain the situation clearly and with a lot of data and infographics. If the situation is not as bad as reported, this would soon become clear. If the situation is set to get worse before it gets better, you would have set the stage to handle the escalating crisis by demonstrating transparency and a willingness to share information. This would paradoxically make the situation boring for the Western media.

In conclusion, the nCOV-2019 situation is obviously complicated and still evolving. However, from what I have seen so far, the disease may well not be as bad as initially feared. A lot of alarm seems actually to be caused by the way it has been reported in the media. If so, effective crisis communications must be a major element in handling the situation.