Not the time to lay low. Finding your own voice in times of crisis.

As the world continues to go haywire, it’s time to stop hiding on the sidelines. It’s time to step out and find your voice so that you can speak up. Here’s how.

Photo credit: Dreamstime

Huge problems

Unless you are going through 2023 with your head in the sand, you’ll have noticed that the world is going haywire. Extreme weather events are hitting the headlines on a weekly basis, right-wing extremists are taking power in every region of the world, and multilateral negotiations are increasingly failing as geopolitical tensions fragment the world.

In the face of such turmoil, it’s easier to get caught up watching cute cat videos, plan your next vacation (where’s it not burning or flooding?), and believe national politicians who this time – really, honestly, this time for real – will step up to the challenge, accelerate progress, and set the world back on track (follow this week’s UN General Assembly head of state speeches to hear more).

A post-rights, post-values world?

In a world that is becoming post-rights (defined as not even trying to aspire to – or simply fully trampling on – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”), I fear we are also becoming a generation of post-values (right or wrong? Such a hassle to engage in such debates….)

For example, are you for or against abortion – and if not in all cases, when? Are you for or against using military force – and in which circumstances? Do you think rich people and corporations making lots of profits should be taxed – and to whom should these resources be distributed to? If a vaccine for a deadly disease has been discovered, should the technology be made available to everyone – even to those who don’t pay a cent? These are really tough questions (you can stop reading and switch back to cat videos now if you prefer).

Individual responsibility

Having worked in NGOs and campaigning organizations, and having learned a lot about how change has happened over many decades (through my degrees and work) and specifically in the sector I work in (global health), I strongly believe in individual responsibility. This means that all of us have a voice (that we can use), most of us have a vote (that we should use) – and to use these wisely, each one of us needs to have opinions.

Earlier on in my studies and career, I felt I had so much to learn. There were millions of books and thousands of experts around me. I felt comfortable discussing what other people had written or presented, but faced with situations where I’d have to voice my own opinion, I’d often fall silent. Did I really know everything about the issue that was being discussed? Wasn’t what I was considering saying just naive and embarrassing? Hadn’t someone more senior in the room hinted that I had too few grey hairs and too little lived experience to really have something of value to say among so many eminent experts? Surely someone else would make my point more eloquently and succinctly.

A few years into my career, I realized that not that many people were making the points I felt increasingly strongly about. Health as a human right, for every single person on the planet – why did no one say this in meetings or conferences? Why were they speaking about economic benefits and best buys with returns on investments? Or on gender equality, why were politicians and media only highlighting how to get women into the workforce, but not focusing on men sharing caretaking work or women being entitled to well-paid careers?

I began speaking out. Because if I didn’t, in most situations I found myself in, no one else would.

From voice to action

If you don’t know what you think about things – and what you stand for when you have to make a choice – it’s difficult to take action. For example, if you don’t really have an opinion on the planet becoming uninhabitable within just a few generations, you’ll probably continue with your current consumption and lifestyle patterns. You may half-heartedly like a social media post decrying climate change. Or if the person living across the globe who can’t access life-saving vaccines doesn’t really make a difference to you, you can get your fourth Covid19 booster and just move along with your day without a second thought.

It’s difficult to act – to vote and rally others to vote, to engage in campaigning and lobbying, to change your own habits and ways and encourage others to do so too – if you don’t really care. And in my experience, you rarely care about issues you don’t have opinions on.

I continue to see so many smart people who stay on the sidelines, silent. They’re waiting for someone else to speak out – just as I waited in silence earlier on in my studies and career. They’re waiting for some politician to change the world. And many just keep sticking their head back in the sand, every single day, because it’s someone else’s job to talk about values, and choices, and act to solve our current crises.

Discovering your values and voice

Having learned from some of the best activists, communicators, and advocates, and based on my own experience and path, here’s my advice on finding your own voice, and learning to speak up:

1. Follow and connect with people who inspire you. Connecting with a fabulous orator like Barack Obama may not be possible for everyone, but you can follow and learn from anyone – whether an individual or an organization. Read books, watch Youtube videos, follow social media posts, listen to speeches. I have over the past decade literally asked colleagues and friends for lists of people who in their opinion do things well, and done my own searching using social media. My own criteria has been whether I can discern clear values that resonate with me (e.g. equity, gender equality, human rights).
2. Learn what you don’t like. The above tip may push you to engage within an echo chamber. It’s therefore important to keep your eyes, ears, and mind open, and listen to what else is out there. What makes you angry? What is in your opinion going in the wrong direction? What do you disagree with? What goes against your core values? What are the issues no one is even raising?
3. Learn to use your voice – by using your voice. Knowing where you stand, and what you want to change, is a first step. Speaking out means that you show where you stand, and make your position known. You don’t immediately need to hold a keynote speech at a conference on the topic but can begin by discussing more difficult topics at the dinner table, among friends, or in a smaller team meeting. When you speak (and write), you realize where you may have logic gaps, or need to do more research or thinking. It may feel daunting, but my tip here is also to be honest about what you still need to figure out. You are also allowed to change your views as you learn. If you’d already have all the answers and solutions, we wouldn’t have human rights violations or climate change!
4. Engage. Repeat. Research shows that most people don’t hear your message until you have repeated it a few times – it simply doesn’t resonate among the thousands of other issues a listener or reader is focused on. Repetition is key. And if an issue is something you care about deeply, you’ll find this comes automatically. Don’t fear sounding like a broken record. Find new ways to explore and communicate issues, new angles, hooks, and opportunities. Unless gender equality or health as a human right have been achieved, stating your position once is unlikely to move the needle significantly.
5. Dare to share. Unless you live in a country where your life and safety are at risk, share broadly. Social media reaches more people than you think, even if only a few people like your post – you’d be surprised by how many people read, listen, or see it – and reflect on it. If your employer has some ludicrous policy on not being allowed to stand for gender equality or human rights, my tip is to push back on such policies – or simply consider switching your employer.

With every single election, every dehumanizing clampdown on human rights, and every further rise in global temperatures, time is of the essence. It’s time to step out and find your voice so that you can speak up.

The dilemma of vaccine equity – Walking the talk on advocacy?

In this blog, I explore the personal dilemma that many vaccine equity advocates face. This dilemma is not new: global health and international development advocates don’t always walk their own talk.

Me first? Photo credit: Bloomberg

People’s vaccine – for everyone, everywhere

In June 2020, UN Secretary General Guterres called for a “people’s vaccine” for Covid19, a global public good that is available to all, everywhere, free of charge.

As of March 2021, the global target to first vaccinate a critical 20 percent of population in every country (including health workers and at-risk populations) is still far off track, not to mention ensuring equitable distribution and timelines for Covid19 vaccines (see below).

Covid19 vaccination status, as of March 2021

My vaccine, for me first

The reason why fair and equitable (and also more effective) vaccination distribution is not happening is because many rich countries have hoarded Covid19 vaccines, both through bilateral deals to pre-order vaccines, as well as by hoarding more vaccine doses than are required to meet the 20% vaccination targets.

The cause for this vaccine nationalism is quite simple: citizens in many rich countries are demanding to be vaccinated first (also non-risk populations, before high-risk populations in other countries). Politicians vying for election and political wins are catering to this demand, and where there is sufficient budget and business clout (i.e. ability to pay and close relationships with pharmaceutical companies), this demand is met by supply.

Another reason why rich countries are being vaccinated at high rates is the weakness of multilateral adherence. Covax, a multilateral mechanism “supported” by most countries in the world (including rich ones), has to date only supplied 12 million vaccines to poorer countries. You only need to compare 12 million vaccinations for billions of people to the 100 million that have been vaccinated in the US alone to see the scale of the problem.

Personal dilemmas

So far so clear: high-income countries and politicians are to blame, right? This is the storyline most global health advocates (and generally international development advocates on aid and global issues such as climate) use. I too have been vocal with this position.

But what about our own practical steps as advocates for vaccine equity? We’re on the one hand communicating that we need vaccine equity, and more donations for mechanisms such as Covax, but many advocates are just as impatient to get vaccinated in their own countries (very well knowing that their vaccine will come long before health workers in many countries).

Some of the justifications I have seen to date for getting vaccinated anyway are:

1. We need to support national vaccination efforts, also by showing we ourselves have been vaccinated, to combat vaccine hesitancy and the antivaxx movement.
2. By getting vaccinated, we are protecting other vulnerable people in our communities – it’s not just to protect ourselves.
3. The vaccine doses are in our country already, and will be rolled out no matter what. We would be undermining herd immunity efforts and miss our chance at getting a vaccine some time soon if we don’t get vaccinated.
4. We deserve to get vaccinated as advocates, it’s part of the perks of being part of the “health workforce” more broadly, and we see ourselves as part of the 20% target population.

Many of these above arguments are convincing and may hold true, but we need to be self-aware and transparent that each point has a flip side – and consequences for other people in poorer countries, vaccine availability in the short and long run, as well as multilateral mechanisms.

1. By highlighting that we are being vaccinated now (as non-essential or non-frontline health workers, or people without chronic health risks), we’re also feeding vaccine nationalism further. Each vaccine dose above the essential 20% is one vaccine dose less elsewhere at the moment, with current vaccine dose and production capacities.
2. Vaccines currently protect those who are vaccinated, although there are some initial indications that they can contribute to decreasing the spread of Covid19 as well. But current guidance is that even with a vaccination, distancing and hygiene measures are more important and need to be continued.
3. Countries such as Norway have shown that vaccine surplus can be donated through Covax or other mechanisms, to ensure vaccine equity and equitable vaccination timelines.
4. Working on health while sitting at a computer in your isolated office does not make you a front-line health worker. You are taking away vaccines from people who work 24/7 directly with or at risk to Covid19 patients.

Walk the talk

I personally think that global health advocates (those without frontline contact or chronic illnesses) should take a stance on vaccine nationalism also in practice. If we’re serious about vaccine equity, we should continue to curtail our freedoms, and continue to wait for parties, in-person conferences, vacations abroad, and jetting around the world again.

As global health and vaccine equity advocates, we should keep stepping back in the national vaccination queues until vaccine doses have been made available to the agreed 20% everywhere.

And we should self-reflect and call out our own hypocrisy in our broader advocacy efforts.

Working on global health and climate advocacy, but planning on jetting around continents again multiple times a year? Think about it.

Working on public taxes for social services, but working at international organisations where you don’t pay a penny of taxes? Think about it.

Working on vaccine equity, but making sure you get your own vaccination the latest before the summer, so that you can finally have a holiday abroad? Think about it.

Think about it. And change it.

For Better Decision-Making, Support People-Centered Advocacy

Investing in people-centered advocacy can lay the foundation for more comprehensive policy responses to future crises.

By Joanna Mikulski and Katri Bertram

“We can’t move from let’s deal with the schools…and then let’s deal with the workplace…or long-term care facilities. We have got to focus on a long-term strategy that focuses on everything at one time.”

Whether to re-open schools or workplaces or long-term care facilities in a pandemic requires a difficult balancing act, as the above quote from Dr. Mike Ryan, Executive Director, WHO Health Emergencies Programme highlights.

Policymakers, public health professionals, school leaders, and other stakeholders need to make decisions within a complex system — weighing, for example, the threats to health against the risk of increasing educational inequalities if children stay home, and working parents’ need for childcare.

Unfortunately, the public debate is often not conducive to holistic decision making. In the school re-opening and other pandemic-related debates in the U.S., U.K. and elsewhere, interest groups for specific populations (e.g. children, individuals with disabilities, migrants, teachers, working parents) or specific issues (e.g. childcare, education, or health) tend to pit one against the other, emphasizing how important it is to focus on these issues or populations first.

Policymakers, whose Ministries and ministerial departments are often set up in silos, mirror these calls for issue or population-based prioritization. (Occasionally with incendiary grand pronouncements.)

The result can be a decision-making process in which everyone feels at risk, and no one feels heard. How can we do better in the next crisis?

The answer to this question is complex. But part of it lies in how advocacy is funded and conducted. In our last article “Beyond zero-sum advocacy”, we argued for more people-centered advocacy — advocacy more in line with the call in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for “comprehensive, far-reaching and people-centred set of universal and transformative Goals and targets.”

People-centered advocacy puts people, not specific population groups or issue areas, at the center — and ideally they tell their own story directly and fully.

The advantages of this type of approach are clear. First, while advocates can tend to see the world through the lens of their priority issue (e.g. education, health or climate), people do not live in policy silos. In telling their stories, they speak from their single reality — making connections, for example, to how keeping a school closed or re-opening it will impact on their health, their economic security, and their broader wellbeing. This, in turn, can help policymakers look at an issue more broadly.

People also do not talk about their lives in technical language. Advocates often specialize and isolate themselves so strongly in their own communities that they have difficulties sharing their language in a comprehensible way with others, and have problems understanding other groups’ lingo. A young person struggling in the midst of a pandemic to finish high school does not — helping to make the problem and the potential solutions more real.

So why doesn’t more people-centered advocacy happen?

Because it requires shifts in power.

Funding for advocacy is nearly always tightly earmarked, often with pre-set policy goals favored by the funder. True people-centered advocacy does not set the goals beforehand, but rather involves the people affected, as well as their families and communities, in deciding what policies will improve their lives. Funders need to recognize that they may not know best, and need to be more flexible in how they support advocacy.

Furthermore, advocates themselves are challenged with stepping outside of their issue area. People-centered advocacy also requires them to take a step back, put the voices of others first, and even challenge their assumptions.

Finally, people-centered advocacy demands that funders and advocates challenge existing power dynamics and structures in ways that may be uncomfortable for them. Advocacy is often set up in a way that mirrors ministerial departments and reinforces intra-ministerial turf wars. This makes sense if the goal is narrow policy wins. Putting the voices of those affected first challenges how the entire system is set up — and whose perspective matters.

But these shifts in power are essential if advocacy — and by extension, policymaking — is to break out of its silos and be able to truly build strategies, as Dr. Ryan called for, with that focus “on everything at one time.” A crisis requires a comprehensive approach, are donors ready to fund advocacy differently to be better prepared next time a crisis strikes?

***

Photo by Micheile Henderson on Unsplash

Finding my voice

„Do you prefer singing alone where no-one hears you or standing silently on a stage in front of an audience?“

I used to sing in a semi-professional choir. There were auditions, practices twice a week, and weekly obligatory voice lessons. We performed at the Berlin Philharmonic every couple of months. I was never very good at singing, but could sing my part, and love singing.

I recently read a tweet posted by former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf where she encouraged women and girls to find their voice. It made me think.

Have I held positions that have been supportive of and encouraged me to use my voice? Or have I been asked to remain silent? Has anyone cared whether I have a voice? More recently I have wondered whether I have lost my voice. What is it that I want to say?

One aim during my job transition period has been to rediscover my voice. What do I think about the state of the world, our society, and global health? What knowledge and experiences can I share? How do I feel about things? What moves me and what motivates me to work for change? What makes me angry, what and who inspires me?

My aim is to find out what I have to say, and how I want to say it. And right now, I prefer singing even if no-one hears me rather than standing silently on a stage in front of an audience.

During my studies, I had an incredibly smart professor who ran a masters course on constructivism and all post-modern theories in international relations. I listened and learned in awe, read all the assigned books and articles, and was asked to present my thoughts. I did. I remember the professor asking me: „But which thinker is associated with which argument? Whose conclusion are you presenting?“ Every single idea had to be associated with some great thinker, nothing was expected to be mine. My voice didn‘t matter.

When I decided to leave my last job, I thought I was looking for mental space. I wanted to do some serious self-reflection, and take a step back to be able to think about our global health and development system and community.

But I‘ve over these past few months come to realize I have also been looking for my own voice. Because understanding is not enough, I want to be able to articulate what is unjust, what needs to change, what possible solutions could be. I don‘t believe action is possible if you are not able to articulate what you are going to change and do.

Ideally, I want to find people who think about the same issues I think about, or inspire me to think more, and more deeply. I want to find people who are not scared to speak out. I have been extremely lucky to know such people, but also meet so many new people through this transition journey.

I may prefer singing alone to being silent, but my biggest hope is to sing together, each with our own voice and part. Because the world will not change through silence, it needs more voices, and it needs more people who speak out.

No more silence.

Beyond Zero-Sum in the New Normal – How does advocacy, communications, and fundraising need to change post-pandemic?

By Joanna Mikulski and Katri Bertram 

The Covid-19 pandemic is reinforcing in a stark way how interconnected our societies and challenges are. A functioning and prosperous economy and society depends on having a strong and inclusive public health system and political leaders capable of implementing sound measures to control the spread of a virus. Immigration, labor and education policies impact whether the health system has skilled workers needed to respond – and health and safety regulations and equipment in place to protect them. Trade, industrial and development policies impact whether countries can continue to provide their populations with essential supplies. Social policies determine whether sick days, child care, and income loss are covered. The quality of the air we breathe impacts our health and ability to recover from infection. Furthermore, forest loss makes future pandemics like Covid-19 more likely. 

Yet, despite the clear interconnections, much of the discourse about the pandemic and returning to a “new normal” has focused on opposing choices. Should governments protect the health of people or that of the economy? Should donors and international organisations fund programs to deal with the pandemic or invest in efforts to combat climate change? Should governments and companies protect workers’ health, or focus on their businesses survival? Is the health sector essential, but education and food supply not? 

These are not either/or questions. Rather, it is a question of finding the right balance for different phases of a crisis, and different contexts. As professionals who have worked across government, NGOs, international organisations, and philanthropy, we’re not surprised by the zero-sum approaches. Most policy analysis is highly specialized, but also fragmented and siloed. The same applies to decision-making, as well as budgeting. It is difficult to break these silos, as entire institutions have been set up accordingly. To support policy analysis, decision making, and budgeting in a way that best addresses complex challenges, we propose that a key first step is changing our narratives. That starts with how advocacy, communications, and fundraising campaigns are conducted.  

We have advised a wide range of organisations on how to advocate to increase political priority and funding for their issues. These have included organisations working to prevent violence; ensure children and mothers have enough healthy food to eat; bring universal health coverage to their countries; stop climate change; and support early childhood development. Leaders working on each of these issues should be allies. But too often, they’re not. Some truly believe that their issue is the most vital issue – which deserves the most attention or funding. Other leaders acknowledge that their success depends on the success of those working on other challenges. But their advocacy, communications and fundraising often tells another story, putting their issue – whether it’s nutrition, health, education or something else – in competition for attention with government, donors and others. And it’s not just competition among, but also within, sectors. Covid-19 is likely to bring more emphasis to diseases – perhaps at the expense of support for health systems and other sectors.   

We have felt pressure to reinforce these silos. When everyone wants their issue to get the most funding and attention, it’s easier to design a narrow issue-specific campaign than engage in the hard work of figuring out how to work and advocate together to solve complex problems. Our contracts and performance measures often reinforce the same. It’s common for leaders advocating for integrated action to come under fire from those seeking to protect their siloed turf. For example, advocates for the Green New Deal in the U.S. have gotten resistance for arguing that the climate crisis cannot be addressed without also addressing the interlinked crises of racial and economic inequality. Similarly, global health advocates trying to include nutrition policy as a driver of preventable deaths or ill health often get push back from the traditional health community, who fear that disease-specific or medical interventions would get lost or deprioritized. The result is zero-sum competition for budgets, incoherent and fragmented policies and operationalization, and ultimately less impact, and fewer lives saved.

Leaders working in all sectors are likely entering a moment where the apparent incentives to reinforce silos will – also in the face of scarcer budgets and in many countries ahead of elections – be stronger than ever. Governments and other donors are likely to tighten budgets in the face of the economic fallout from the pandemic – creating an incentive to fall back on “my issue first”. But the reality will continue to be that we will contain Covid-19, have more impact, and build back our systems better and more coherently by working together. 

So how should advocacy, communications and fundraising support collaboration in this new moment? We offer a few broad suggestions below, but we’re looking for your input and specific examples of what advocacy, communications and fundraising should look like in a new and better normal. 

• Advocate for people, not issues. Leaders working in policy and development tend to think in issue silos (at least professionally). But people tend to tell stories about our lives and the challenges we face in holistic ways. Centering advocacy on people instead of issues helps to avoid language suggesting that any one issue or sector is the silver bullet to all problems. It also helps convene representatives from different sectors or ministries – and explicitly advocate for shared planning, budgeting and accountability mechanisms across decision-making and budgeting.

• Communicate about intersections between issues. Recognize the importance of other issues, and their interconnectedness to your primary issue. Even if it’s a secondary message, communicate and campaign in a way that is not zero-sum. Leaders should also pay attention to how their technical language can shut others out. Partner across sectors, and include partners who have more freedom to message across sectors or beyond limited funding lines (e.g. academia and think tanks).  

• Fundraise and collaborate in a way that expands the pie for all. Another answer may be to focus more on broad-based policies to increase the amount of funding available for all – like campaigns to increase the total amount of funding for development rather than the amount available for a specific issue. 

Covid-19 provides a historical opportunity to do things differently. We can decide to work together for more impact for all people, society and the global economy, or we can blindly defend our silos at the cost of everything else. 

As advocacy, communications and fundraising specialists, we believe our community can support and develop a more coherent, collaborative narrative and ways of working. Are we – and are our funders – ready to go down this new path?

Please share in our comments section or through social media examples where collaborative advocacy, communication, and fundraising is already taking place. We and our community would love to learn from best practices. 

Global Health Advocacy – The Danger of "Told You So"

For a global and public health advocate, Covid19 / the global corona virus pandemic is an exciting yet confusing time. After years or even decades of trying to get people’s and decision makers’ attention (and often failing), every single person on this planet is currently focused on “our” issue – health.

There are some really fabulous global health experts and advocates out there. I was inspired to start working in global health 15 years ago because of some of these. I saw and read about global problems that impacted individual lives (and resulted in so much unnecessary death and suffering), and a number of advocates at the time had powerful stories to tell, and – most importantly – solutions to these problems. I was inspired to try to contribute with my own skills, effort and time to this important cause.

What I am seeing during the pandemic from advocacy is slightly disappointing. I find myself pulled towards this same trap as well. It’s the “I told you so” trap. The narrative seems to be along the lines of:

• World and decision-makers: We have a problem. What should we do?
• Global health advocates: Well, we told you so. Read my article / blog / statement from three years ago.
• World and decision-makers: But what do we do to address this specific problem?
• Global health advocates: Here’s my article / blog / statement from before on Issue X, with a paragraph upfront stating that Covid19 is a problem, and my previous statement advocating for Issue X is the solution.
• World and decision-makers: Anyone else out there?

The above is of course an extreme example, but as I find myself pulled towards this same dialogue (and of course believe what I preach is the solution: universal health coverage and a strong focus on equity!), and as I am seeing a lot of advocates do the same, I’m asking us to rethink.

Who is supporting your statements? Is it your usual bubble? Then you are not being heard by those who need to hear you right now.

Are you really connecting your issue to Covid19? Or is your jump from an infectious disease to your issue (X) a jump that implicitly requires several logical chains in between to work? If the latter, you are unlikely to be understood or come across as relevant right now.

Are you not even bothering to rewrite your messages, but just pointing to old articles, or responding with a slightly arrogant “I told you so”? I’m not sure many people will want to listen to you, or work with you in the future. There are many, many priorities in the world, and just because your one suddenly fits into the broader narrative, this does not make you a good partner also in the longer term.

Covid19 is a polarizing time, and it’s exciting to be able to voice (also strong) opinions on issues right now. Every global and public health advocate probably sees a clear link to their work, and wants to contribute with solutions – also to ensure that we are better prepared in a sustainable way next time a pandemic hits, or any other disease or health burden.

Here are a couple of suggestions how we, as global health advocates, could have more impact right now – as well as for the long term:

1. Focus. Instead of adding Issue D, E, F, G, etc to the list of solutions, to be heard, and – most importantly – understood and followed, we need to unite around issues A, B, C as a priority. Easier said than done, but I am missing an advocacy coalition of organizations (and their leadership) right now. It seems like we’re back in “look at me, and raise funds for me” mode right now. From the past, we know that we have less impact this way, and the longer term consequences are disastrous, both for our architecture and for the way we work on the ground, with people.
2. Amplify. Instead of positioning yourself as Expert Number 36,876 on Covid19, amplify those who are trusted, credible experts. Why on earth is every single organization developing separate Covid19 guidance with their own logo stamped across, when they could build on and amplify what is already out there? Yes, we need to tailor and ensure that our key populations and issues are addressed, but these can be annexed or added, instead of reinventing the wheel. This would help with point 1 above too.
3. Message on the Short and Long Term. Most people and decision-makers are fully focused on what needs to happen right now to tackle the disease outbreak, and keep their incomes or economy from collapsing. Advocates focusing on the short term get most attention, but especially they are now responsible for including also the “build back better” solutions. It would be disastrous if we lost this short window of opportunity for transformational change. This does not have to mean a full overhaul of every system, but it would be a great win if we could get decision-makers to see the problems these current systems (economic, gender, health systems, development, etc.) are causing – and ideally get them to publicly commit to focus on these also after the outbreak.
4. Encourage Others to Join. I am finding this one tough, and am sure many people with decades of in-depth expertise in global and public health are too. Suddenly, everyone is voicing opinions and offering solutions and guidance on “our” issues. All those people who belittled or neglected health are suddenly voicing opinions as experts, and being listened to too! We as global and public health advocates need to shed off our arrogance (and we have a lot of this in our sector!), and be open to new voices. If their evidence and sources are credible, the outcomes should be front and center, not who is voicing these. Whatever works should be our credo, and if someone else from outside of our sector is more effective than we are, we need to welcome this. Our greatest win would be to win over more expertise, more voice, more supporters, and more influencers for our cause.
5. Don’t Repaste, Please Rewrite. Finally, a simple comms advice. Never repost an old article with a new header or introduction. Rewrite from scratch. If your evidence, arguments, and messages still hold true, they will stick. Context matters, and your article from three years ago – no matter how valid and true – needs to be written in this current context, tailored fully to these current times. Linked to Number 1, 2, and 4, think about co-authoring.

Less “told you so”, please.