Search

We examined the perspectives of the Red River Métis citizens in Manitoba, Canada, during the H1N1 and COVID‐19 pandemics and how they interpreted the communication of government/health authorities' risk management decisions. For Indigenous populations, pandemic response strategies play out within the context of ongoing colonial relationships with government institutions characterized by significant distrust. A crucial difference between the two pandemics was that the Métis in Manitoba were prioritized for early vaccine access during H1N1 but not for COVID‐19. Data collection involved 17 focus groups with Métis citizens following the H1N1 outbreak and 17 focus groups during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Métis prioritization during H1N1 was met with some apprehension and fear that Indigenous Peoples were vaccine‐safety test subjects before population‐wide distribution occurred. By contrast, as one of Canada's three recognized Indigenous nations, the non‐prioritization of the Métis during COVID‐19 was viewed as an egregious sign of disrespect and indifference. Our research demonstrates that both reactions were situated within claims that the government does not care about the Métis, referencing past and ongoing colonial motivations. Government and health institutions must anticipate this overarching colonial context when making and communicating risk management decisions with Indigenous Peoples. In this vein, government authorities must work toward a praxis of decolonization in these relationships, including, for example, working in partnership with Indigenous nations to engage in collaborative risk mitigation and communication that meets the unique needs of Indigenous populations and limits the potential for less benign—though understandable—interpretations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered extreme preventive measures, including economic and social lockdowns. Many experts and commentators, however, have argued in favor of a harm reduction approach, giving individuals the liberty to assess their risk and potentially engage in risky behavior more safely. Drawing on concepts from harm reduction literature we examine how Canadians interpreted messages intended to mitigate harm during the 2020 end-of-year holiday season. We conducted 12 focus groups in four Canadian cities to discuss public health guidance to reduce the spread of COVID-19, how these messages influenced their holiday celebration plans, and how they interpreted harm mitigation messages. Focus group participants (n = 82) described COVID-19 public health guidance as confusing and difficult to follow. Participants considered that messages intended to mitigate harm from official sources would contribute to deepening confusion and uncertainty, allow for personal interpretation of guidelines, and discourage those who follow guidelines diligently. Official public health messaging intended to mitigate harm in rapidly evolving crisis situations can be ineffective in reducing risky behaviors because it may instead encourage people to not abide the recommended guidelines. In these situations, harm reduction messaging should be limited to specific groups who cannot otherwise avoid risk exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined the perspectives of the Red River Métis citizens in Manitoba, Canada, during the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics and how they interpreted the communication of government/health authorities' risk management decisions. For Indigenous populations, pandemic response strategies play out within the context of ongoing colonial relationships with government institutions characterized by significant distrust. A crucial difference between the two pandemics was that the Métis in Manitoba were prioritized for early vaccine access during H1N1 but not for COVID-19. Data collection involved 17 focus groups with Métis citizens following the H1N1 outbreak and 17 focus groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. Métis prioritization during H1N1 was met with some apprehension and fear that Indigenous Peoples were vaccine-safety test subjects before population-wide distribution occurred. By contrast, as one of Canada's three recognized Indigenous nations, the non-prioritization of the Métis during COVID-19 was viewed as an egregious sign of disrespect and indifference. Our research demonstrates that both reactions were situated within claims that the government does not care about the Métis, referencing past and ongoing colonial motivations. Government and health institutions must anticipate this overarching colonial context when making and communicating risk management decisions with Indigenous Peoples. In this vein, government authorities must work toward a praxis of decolonization in these relationships, including, for example, working in partnership with Indigenous nations to engage in collaborative risk mitigation and communication that meets the unique needs of Indigenous populations and limits the potential for less benign-though understandable-interpretations., (© 2024 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.)