Out Loud Blog

EHS Today works to provide its readers with the best and most up-to-date occupational health and safety news available, and that was no different during the H1N1 flu scare. Two mathematical biologists now reveal that media coverage of a pandemic can significantly help prevent the spread of disease.

During outbreaks of serious infectious diseases, many people closely follow media reports and, as a result, take precautions – such as staying home, getting vaccinated, avoiding crowds, using disinfectants, canceling travel plans and wearing face masks.

Known as “self-isolation,” these precautions significantly can reduce the severity of an outbreak, according to mathematical modeling done by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and Marshall University in Huntington, W.Va.

“The more forcefully the media provides information about pandemic infections and deaths, the more the total number of infections is reduced,” said Howard Weiss, a professor in the Georgia Tech School of Mathematics. “Media coverage also reduces the maximum number of infections at any particular time, which is important for allocating the resources needed for treating infectious diseases.”

The benefit of publicly reporting disease outbreaks seems obvious, and public health officials in the United States have a policy of regularly communicating with the news media about such incidents. But according to Weiss, not all world governments choose to communicate so well – and nobody had used rigorous mathematical techniques to study the impact of that communication before.

Adjusting the Model

Epidemiologists use the S-I-R model to anticipate the effect of disease outbreaks. The basic model places individuals into one of three groups signified by each letter of the acronym:

• Susceptible individuals, who are vulnerable to the disease;

• Infected individuals, who have the disease;

• Removed individuals, who have been vaccinated, have isolated themselves from the population, have already recovered from the disease – or have died.

Weiss and collaborator Anna Mummert, an assistant professor of mathematics at Marshall University, modified that model to take into account ways that individuals could move from the susceptible group to the removed group without passing through the infected group. By self-isolating as a result of news media warnings, they reasoned, individuals could move directly into the removed class because they are no longer susceptible.

“On a chart showing the number of infected people at any one time, as you increase the intensity of the media coverage, you substantially decrease the number of infections,” Weiss noted. “We are assuming that people self-isolate at a rate that is proportional to the amount of media coverage, though we would like to study that in more detail.”

The sooner the media coverage of a pandemic begins, the fewer individuals ultimately will be infected. But Weiss said the model shows that almost any media coverage is helpful at reducing the extent of a pandemic.

“Telling the public always helps, but the longer you wait, the less it helps,” he said. “If you wait long enough, the effect of media coverage is essentially negligible.”

Weiss acknowledges that strong communications about such dreaded diseases as Ebola could create public panic. In those rare cases, public health officials must weigh the benefits against the risks.

“In general, our advice to public health officials anywhere in the world is not to hold back,” he added. “They should get out the news about infectious disease outbreaks loudly and quickly. It’s clear that vigorous media reporting can have a substantial effect on reducing the impact of an outbreak.”

EHS Today plays its part by covering pandemic news and providing businesses with tools and advice for creating pandemic plans:

H1N1: Spreading the Message

CDC Releases New Flu Guidance for Employers

Industrial Hygienists Urge Businesses to Prepare for a Pandemic Now

Mass Notification Systems: A Useful Tool during Pandemic Response

Could basic financial education for workers help increase productivity? One recent survey suggests that employers think so.

In a survey conducted by the Personal Finance Employee Education Foundation, 91 percent of respondents considered employee financial literacy important in reducing the vulnerability of the American economy to major economic crises. And a majority of responding employers (70 percent) thought that the employer provision of basic workplace financial education is important to the overall level of productivity in their organization.

With employers noting an increase in emergency loans and employees requesting time off to handle financial issues during these recessionary times, a little education might go a long way. Financial education for employees can include budgeting, debt reduction and credit management.

Only 28 percent of respondents, however, provided basic workplace financial education – in contrast with the 88 percent who do provide the investment/retirement education associated with retirement plans.

Employers listed several barriers to providing this type of basic financial education: cost; the belief that employees would not sacrifice work time to attend; and too many higher priority competing items. In addition, half of respondents doubted they could get upper management to buy into this provision.

“The value of employee financial education is clear,” said Judith Cohart, president and CEO of the Personal Finance Employee Education Foundation. “The challenge is to overcome the barriers that prevent employers from providing this benefit to their employees.”

On July 30, Kevin Morrissey, managing editor of the prestigious literary journal Virginia Quarterly Review (VQR), walked to an old coal tower in Charlottesville, Va., called 911 to report a shooting, and then shot and killed himself. What began as a personal tragedy for his friends, family and coworkers quickly spiraled out of control when his boss, Ted Genoways, was accused of bullying Morrissey and other employees.

The Hook ran an in-depth piece concerning the circumstances of the work environment at VQR leading up to Morrissey’s death, and The Chronicle of Higher Education also examined the issue in “What Killed Kevin Morrissey?” According to sources close to VQR, Morrissey and other employees complained of a hostile work environment and attempted on several occasions to seek help from the University of Virginia administration.

As various sources painted the picture of Genoways as a bully (shouting, sending hostile or accusatory emails, cutting Morrissey out of decisions, isolating him during a week-long suspension from the office and more), a contributing editor — who did not work in the VQR offices — defended Genoways and accused workplace bullying experts of capitalizing on the situation without a complete understanding of the actual work conditions or Genoways’ behavior as a boss. And an ethics professor recently called workplace bullying a “hot new social malady” that has become a magnet for media attention. He argued that journalists are acting irresponsibly by being so quick to describe Morrissey’s suicide as a product of workplace bullying.

Indeed, Morrissey had struggled with depression for years and little else is known about the circumstances surrounding his suicide. Can one boss, no matter how big a bully, cause another person to commit suicide? No, perhaps not, but workplace bullying and its impact on employee well-being and mental health remains an important issue, and one that is relevant in workplaces across the country.

“This Has Got to Stop”

When I first learned of Morrissey’s death, I read aloud to a friend an article that listed Genoways’ alleged actions and Morrissey’s attempts for help. “This is crazy,” she kept saying. “This has got to stop.”

The “this” she was referring to was workplace bullying in general. She had worked for bosses she would definitely describe as bullies. And after listening to her stories and complaints over the years, I’d have to agree. So this story resonated with my friend and led her to think that, while perhaps not the cause of Morrissey’s suicide, it sure sounded like a bullying work environment.

While none of us can know exactly what went down in those VQR offices, and while an employee’s depression can’t be explained away by workplace tensions, we can still recognize that workplace bullying is a real thing, and something that appears in work environments across the nation. It’s something that affects employees’ well-being, productivity and more. And too often, employees feel powerless to stop it.

I remember what it was like to hear my friend complain about her dysfunctional work experiences. On more than one occasion, I said something like, “I would never put up with that!” But when you’re in that environment, when you feel trapped and unsure of what to do, it can be difficult to leave or find a way to get the help you need.

EHS Today covers workplace bullying because any issue that affects the general health and happiness of a work force also impacts productivity, safety and workplace culture. Many companies — at least as evidenced by the America’s Safest Companies applications we receive — also seem to recognize the value of a well-functioning, well-adjusted work force. And you can’t achieve that if your workers feel bullied by the person in power.

The VQR tragedy and ensuing investigation have caused the venerable journal to close its offices and cancel its winter issue. Time will tell what is in the journal’s future.

As for my friend, who suffered through several bullying bosses? She’s currently self-employed.

EHS Today articles on workplace bullying:

Workplace Bullying May Be More Harmful than Sexual Harassment

The Curse of the Workplace Bully

Even in Hostile Working Environments, Employees Reluctant to Leave Jobs

Abusive Bosses, If Productive, Don’t Suffer Consequences