# 3404
Helen Branswell brings us a terrific article today on the concerns of experts over the use of the word `mild’ to describe the H1N1 swine flu virus.
It’s been a recurring theme in this blog that the use of that term may come back to haunt officials this fall, when it comes time to convince people of the need to protect themselves with a vaccine.
It also results in editorials, like the one I highlighted earlier this week (see Risky Communications), that blatantly misrepresent the threat.
Helen Branswell brings us the thoughts of Risk Communications expert Peter Sandman – whom I’ve featured many times in this blog (including here, here, here, and here), along with Dr. Keiji Fukuda, the World Health Organization's top flu expert, and Dr. Michael Osterholm, Director of CIDRAP.
A better lineup of experts you aren’t going to find.
As always, follow the link to read the article in its entirety.
Constant use of 'mild' to describe swine flu misleading people about threat
Provided by: Canadian Press
Written by: Helen Branswell, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Jun. 28, 2009TORONTO - Officialdom's mantra about swine flu - "it is overwhelmingly mild" - might seem incongruous if we knew the number of children, teens and young adults in ICU beds right now alive only because a breathing machine has taken over for their ravaged lungs.
The heavy reliance on the word "mild " could be creating a false impression of what is actually going on and what the world may face in coming months, some experts worry.
Peter Sandman, a risk communications guru from Princeton, N.J., suggests if authorities are trying to ensure people don't panic about the new H1N1 outbreak, they are concerned about the wrong thing.
"In North America, swine flu panic is much rarer than swine flu deaths," Sandman says.
"The problem isn't panic or even excessive anxiety. The problem is complacency, both about what's going to happen and about what might happen."
