What everyone involved with speaking to the public-at-large during the pandemic should have immediately realised in the early days was that ‘we’re following the science’ does not imply that this is a static situation. They should have acknowledged that this novel coronavirus is dynamic and ever-changing. And that following the science implies that we must be ready to adapt and interpret new data with a different view that requires a different response and a different set of rules and requirements.

So, here we are in a ‘see-I-told-you-so’ world where every person who wears a mask and gets infected or every double-vaccinated person who ends up in the hospital with severe COVID-19 is the poster child for why ‘we’re following the science’ is the (second) most inflammatory phrase of this pandemic.

In fact, when you tell people that you are following the science it implies some sort of studious, well-planned and thoughtful approach to the situation. It evokes images of scientists and policy-makers working hand-in-hand to develop common sense and practical responses to a devastating situation. While these situations have surely happened, in reality, ‘we’re following the science’ has more closely resembled ‘we’re reacting to the science’.

While it’s hard to quantify the exact difference these subtle words would have made over the course of a 20-month global pandemic in terms of case infection rates, hospitalisation rates, mortality rates or vaccination rates, it is not hard to imagine that the impact would have been substantial. With the amount of mistrust and distrust, vitriol, scepticism and plain incertitude that has mushroomed since March 2020, it is quite possible that we could have been in a very different place.

There are those who will argue that these small, nuanced words are meaningless and that finding ourselves in a different place from a communication point of view starts and ends with the destructive nature of social media. And this is my fundamental point.

Yes, social media shoulders a tremendous amount of blame for where we are today. But only because it gains oxygen from and relies upon the unintentional faulty utterances of politicians, physicians and public health experts from whence to create and sow confusion. In this pandemic and at this moment, it feels more and more like social media’s raison d’etre is to challenge our public institutions and use their words against them.

But, while social media acted as an accelerant, the absence of social media would not have prevented this real problem. Print, radio and tv would have all carried the phrase ‘we’re following the science’ to the masses – just more slowly.

The solution, if there is one, points perhaps to something that may not be very natural for most people: acknowledging error and being more pessimistic. It is deeply unpopular to suggest that mass death and disease are at our doorstep and that the already fragile economy is in danger of cracking even further. There is value in being optimistic during times of immense stress and duress. And no one wants to stand in front of people and state that what they are about to tell you is likely to be wrong 30 days from now. It is unsettling.

Admitting an error before it happens leads people to look at you strangely and think: “Well, if you know it’s going to be wrong, why are you telling me now?” Telling the truth has never been so complicated.