Coronavirus: State obligations and public awareness
A few quick thoughts on some polling I commissioned, which was carried out between 24–26 March by Number Cruncher Politics
When times are bad, you often just want someone you trust to tell you it’ll all be ok. Sometimes, of course, that answer simply isn’t available to them — and, then, you’ll probably just want to know what you should do. Human beings are thoughtful, reasoning creatures, capable of weighing up complex options, and making careful, responsible choices. When times are particularly bad, the prime obligation to ensure that we all know what we need to know — to be able to make those responsible choices — falls on the government. Of course, there are other people who also bear a special obligation to inform: community leaders, journalists, academics, parents, and so on. But times like now are when we need the government the most. We need the people with the greatest power and the loudest voice — not to tell us that it’ll be ok, but to inform us reliably, and to explain to us what we need to do, and why.
Crucial to this is clarity and honesty. The government of a liberal democracy like ours has an important general obligation to be transparent — about its policies, and the reasoning behind those policies. The public has a right to know what’s going on, and that doesn’t disappear in times of crisis; neither does the need for decision-makers to be held properly to account. The government also has an important obligation to protect us from external threats, and to help us to protect each other. And all of these obligations are related. If you do not fully understand something burdensome that is being demanded of you, you’ll be less likely to be able to comply with it. If you do not know why the burdensome thing is being demanded, you’ll be less likely to feel that you should comply.
Rather, governmental demands must be clear and accessible; they must be well explained, and well backed-up. And there should be regular candid updates on the effects brought about by compliance with them.
So, how well is Britain’s leadership currently managing to fulfil these heavy obligations? At what level is public awareness of the risks and policies related to the coronavirus crisis? It seems fair to claim that it took the government dangerously long to get going on this: we’ve seen delays, revisionism, and some really quite confusing messaging, alongside a belated and still limited advertising campaign.
Yet, some polling I commissioned on current public awareness — carried out from Tuesday to Thursday of this week (24–26 March), by Number Cruncher Politics — hearteningly suggests that the core messages of the moment are now mostly extremely well understood. This is the case not only regarding crucial scientific facts about Covid-19: according to the polling, 80 per cent of Britons are aware that it is deadlier than the seasonal flu, 90 per cent are aware that it can be passed on by people with no symptoms, and almost 70 per cent are aware that people under the age of 20 have died from it. But there is also positive news regarding awareness of the measures the government has now put in place, and is beginning to enforce: almost 100 per cent are aware that everyone should be avoiding gatherings of any size, and that ‘social distancing’ rules apply to people of all ages.
These findings should not lead to a sense of complacency, however. The polling does suggest that public understanding of the government’s unhelpfully alliterative approach to how we should protect each other — ‘self-isolating’, ‘social distancing’, and ‘shielding’ — is still not fully understood. 21 per cent of people think that you can “visit your elderly relatives who are ‘shielding’, as long as you feel well, and stay 2 metres from them at all times” (and an additional 12 per cent are unsure about this) — which, on my understanding of the rules, is certainly not the case, and could put the most vulnerable at risk. And this might call into question the suggestion that 63 per cent of people believe they can “explain the differences between ‘social distancing’, ‘self-isolating’, and ‘shielding” — although, of course, what is most important is that people are fully aware of the rules relevant to them and the people around them. Moreover, it is also the case that under 60 per cent reported having ‘seen a government advert explaining what you should do during the coronavirus campaign’, which seems low in the modern media age.
Some leaders worry that spreading knowledge of bad things can lead to panic. But suppressing information — particularly when you’re asking people to behave in extraordinary ways — risks a dangerous loss of faith, trust, and buy-in. Some people think that the only way you can get others to behave in extraordinary ways is effectively to trick them, or attempt to control the rate at which they learn relevant facts. Again, this is a dangerous approach — not only because it fails to respect the rights of the people, but also because it can lead to counter-productive confusion.
That the public is, unsurprisingly, capable of such a high level of understanding must be used to strengthen the case for transparent policy-making in this time of crisis. Whether in relation to the reasoning behind the important political and moral decisions the government is making, or the prompt collection and release of information relating to the spread and impact of the disease, the public has a right to know what’s going on.
Things are only ever obvious once you know them, and human beings are extremely good at using knowledge well. That we are reasoning creatures is an essential part of what makes us human: recognising this is essential to the state’s obligations towards us.
Number Cruncher Politics polled 1,010 GB adults between 24th and 26th March 2020. Data are weighted to the profile of the population. Tables are available on the Number Cruncher website.
