Field Notes #4: In Memoriam

In Memoriam

On uncertainty, memory, and the stories outbreaks inherit

Field Notes is where I take one idea from the episode—something that feels like a hinge point—and follow it to see what it reveals. If you want the full story, you can read or listen to the episode here.

In the Margins

One of the hardest things about modern outbreak communication is that people no longer hear scientific language in isolation. They hear it through memory.

“Airborne” is no longer just a technical description of transmission. It carries years of accumulated meaning: lockdowns, arguments, shifting guidance, fear, distrust, and the experience of trying to assess invisible risk in real time.

The same thing happens with phrases like:

• “human-to-human transmission can’t be ruled out”

• “investigation ongoing”

• “close contacts”

• “out of an abundance of caution”

Scientifically, these are often cautious, provisional statements. But after COVID, they no longer land as neutral. They arrive already emotionally translated. And that changes the entire communication landscape.

People are not only evaluating the evidence in front of them. They’re comparing the shape of the story to stories they already survived.

• Does this sound familiar?

• Does this resemble the beginning of something bigger?

• Are we being prepared slowly for worse news later?

That doesn’t mean the public is irrational. In many ways, this is adaptive. Human beings use prior experience to evaluate uncertainty all the time. The problem is that outbreaks unfold before the evidence is complete, while emotional interpretation happens immediately.

Which means that by the time scientists are still trying to determine what category a situation belongs to, many people already feel like they recognize the pattern.

One reason I approached this episode differently is because I don’t think we can communicate outbreaks the same way we did before COVID. Not because uncertainty is new, but because the public relationship to uncertainty has changed.

And honestly, I think science communicators—including me—are still learning how to navigate that well. Not by pretending certainty exists earlier than it does. But by being clearer about what kind of statement we’re making in the first place.

Underlined

These are some of the signals that an outbreak is being interpreted through prior crisis memory rather than only through current evidence.

• Intense focus on wording shifts 

  • Small changes in phrasing are treated as signs that something larger is being hidden or revealed.

• Precautionary statements heard as conclusions 

  • “We can’t rule this out” becomes “They think this is happening.”

• Difficulty separating possibility from probability

  • Rare or theoretical scenarios begin to feel imminent simply because they’ve been mentioned.

• Updates interpreted as contradictions 

  • As evidence changes, revised explanations are experienced as proof that earlier messaging was dishonest rather than incomplete.

• Demand for certainty very early 

  • People often want definitive answers before the investigation realistically allows them.

• Rapid narrative formation 

  • Before investigators fully understand transmission, risk, or scale, the public often already feels like the story has a recognizable trajectory.

These reactions are not pathogen-specific. They’re features of a world that has already lived through prolonged uncertainty.

What It Points To

Outbreak preparedness must include strengthening a society’s capacity to navigate uncertainty together.

Outbreak Updates

Updates will only include information verified through credible reporting or official public health sources.

MV Hondius Hantavirus Investigation

As of mid-morning 5/6/2026:

What changed→ WHO confirmed that the virus involved in the outbreak is Andes hantavirus and reported that, as of 6 May, there are eight identified cases, three of which have been laboratory confirmed. Additional passengers have been medically evacuated for evaluation and care, and international contact tracing and monitoring are now underway across multiple countries.

What it might mean→ At this stage, these developments do not substantially change the broader interpretation of the outbreak. Internationally dispersed cases are expected once passengers from a multinational voyage begin returning home, and precautionary monitoring and testing of close contacts are standard during investigations involving possible person-to-person transmission. Identification of the Andes strain is broadly consistent with expectations based on the ship’s South American itinerary and helps explain the continued focus on close-contact monitoring and isolation precautions.

What it does not tell us yet→ We still do not have evidence of sustained or widespread transmission aboard the ship. Sequencing data, clearer exposure histories, and the timing of symptom onset remain critical to determining how these infections are connected. WHO currently assesses the broader public health risk as low.

Postscript

Thank you for subscribing. 🫶

I keep thinking about how differently this story would have landed ten years ago. COVID changed the emotional terrain around outbreaks. For some, it left deep fear and grief. For others, anger, distrust, or exhaustion. And for many, it left all of those things tangled together.

At the same time, many of the systems meant to help us navigate outbreaks—surveillance networks, public health infrastructure, international coordination—are more fragile now than they were before. That worries me more than this specific hantavirus cluster does.

Maybe that’s another reason I wanted to approach this episode differently. Not to tell people not to worry. And not to tell them to panic. But to practice staying grounded while the evidence is still incomplete.

I think we’re going to need that skill.

— Heather