|dc.identifier.citation||Hooker C. How to cut through when talking to anti-vaxxers and anti-fluoriders The Conversation||en_AU|
|dc.description.abstract||Dismissing people’s worries as baseless, whether that’s about the safety of mobile phones or fluoridated drinking water, is one of the least effective ways of communicating public health risks.
Yet it is common for people to “reassure” like this, both at home and in professional roles as experts, officials or corporate managers.
Another poor but common strategy is to try to debunk “alt-facts” (lies or misleading statements claimed as fact) like those circulating among anti-vaccination or anti-fluoridation groups.
If your role is to communicate public health risks, it is particularly hard to resist trying harder to help people understand the evidence. This is especially the case when a risk is low, and hence public fears are not only out of proportion but also costly to redress.
If an official’s or doctor’s response to a parent worried about fluoridated drinking water is to show them even more data about how safe and effective it is, they often won’t sound convincing. Instead, they’ll look incapable of unbiased discussion. Indeed, the more information they show, the more it can look like propaganda. This approach can even make the opponent’s argument more memorable.
Not only are reassuring people and countering misinformation ineffective, they can end up doing a lot of damage.||en_AU|
|dc.subject||public health communication||en_AU|
|dc.subject||communicate public health risks||en_AU|
|dc.title||How to cut through when talking to anti-vaxxers and anti-fluoriders||en_AU|
|Appears in Collections:||Research Papers and Publications. Sydney Health Ethics|