Perspectives www. thelancet. com Vol 395 March 21, 2020 943 physician Li Wenliang and his brave Wuhan colleagues to convey their suspicions regarding a new form of infectious pneumonia to colleagues, social media, and journalists without risking sanction, and had local officials not for weeks released false epidemic information to the world, we might not now be facing a pandemic. Had Japanese officials allowed full disclosure of their quarantine and testing procedures aboard the marooned Princess Diamond cruise ship, crucial attention might have helped prevent spread aboard the ship and concern in other countries regarding home return of potentially infectious passengers. Had Shincheonji Church and its supporters within the South Korean Government not refused to provide the names and contact information on its members and blocked journalists’ efforts to decipher spread of the virus in its ranks, lives in that country might have been spared infection, illness, and death. Had Iran’s deputy health minister, Iraj Harirchi, and members of the country’s ruling council not tried to convince the nation that the COVID-19 situation was “almost stabilised”, even as Harirchi visibly suffered from the disease while on camera, the Middle East might not now find itself in grave danger from the spread of the disease, with Saudi Arabia suspending visas for pilgrims seeking to visit Mecca and Medina. Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia has free and open journalism, and both nations seek to control narratives through social media censorship, imprisonment, or even execution. And had the Trump administration not declared criticism of its slow response to the encroaching epidemic a “hoax”, claiming it was a political attack from the left, the US CDC might have been pressured to do widespread testing in early February, discovering pockets of community transmission before they dispersed widely. If governments, agencies, and health organisations want people at risk of infection to respond to COVID-19 with an appropriate level of alert, to cooperate with health authorities, and to act with compassion and humanity, I believe that they must be willing to fund their messengers on an unprecedented scale, with genuine urgency. It’s time to put information in the driver’s seat of global and national epidemic responses.

When WHO named the disease COVID-19, the choice was based on scientific standards. But it also matters how the global public might use the name. COVID-19 seems to be a tough term for news media worldwide and the general public. Perhaps even more confusing to the general public is the notion that the disease and the virus (SARS-CoV-2) have seemingly unrelated monikers. Parts of the media have settled for calling the microbial threat the coronavirus. One assumption could be that no expert in commu nications was asked to weigh in on the namings. But had WHO given serious consideration to future control of the public narrative, the agency’s communications staff would have had opportunity to capture online brands and social media monikers before public announcement, such as# COVID19 or a myriad of Facebook page names using permutations of