Mental health is often viewed from the perspective of the person who has it. People are affected by mental health issues on an individual level as well as on a societal level. The word “public morale” does a good job of encapsulating how much more there is to it than the pieces alone.

Public morale is shattered by global pandemics like COVID-19, which also lead to an increase in mental disease and bad health among individuals. In fact, the burden of sickness brought on by the virus’s direct impacts in Australia has been eclipsed by a factor of four by the latter.

During a national crisis, who is accountable for protecting and preserving public morale and the well-being of the general populace?

It is customary for the government and its leaders to take on this crucial role during times of war. There are many variables in play with the COVID-19 pandemic. At a time when popular confidence in and respect for our political leaders was at an all-time low, the worldwide catastrophe struck.

There are two primary reasons for this: medical and public health knowledge is critical because of the nature of the threat. A third reason was that the threat was new and poorly understood, necessitating a wide range of countermeasures. The latter meant that genuine errors were inevitable, which further eroded public confidence….

Medical advice has been a constant refrain from government officials during the majority of the pandemic. At least in the early stages of the epidemic, this has proven to be a sound strategy. Furthermore, the miracle of efficient vaccines has been made possible thanks to advances in scientific and medical knowledge.

There has been an increase in complexity over time. First and foremost, the pandemic’s infectious disease effects have been the only focus of public health guidance, leaving other non-communicable diseases like mental illness and cancer, which are major sources of disease burden, out of the picture.

Many non-COVID-19 contributions to illness burden have increased as a result of Peter being plundered to pay Paul. Although this is understandable, it must be rethought and put aside throughout the recovery from COVID-19.

Another thing that has been slowly disclosed is the truth of so-called “expert medical advice”. Expert medical opinion exists on a spectrum, as any professor or doctor can attest, and this is true in academia as much as in medicine. Groups of professionals in infectious disease and public health have formed factions, reflecting the sociology of medicine and science, as well. In certain cases, the media uses these divergent viewpoints to heighten the commotion and controversy. In the age of social media, these contradictory messages have an even bigger voice.

People can fall into one of two camps: those who believe the worst is about to happen and those who believe there is light at the end of the tunnel. Some of the variance in opinion is caused by a lack of continually developing data, but there are also other non-data-driven variables. Nietzsche is the assertion that “there are no facts, only interpretations” might be embraced at times.

An open intellectual discussion is a privilege and an advantage of living in a free society. However, there are ramifications for mental health and public morale for people who engage in such debate amid a worldwide calamity.

Most Australians can identify with the sense of confusion, anxiety, and loss of morale that has resulted from this crisis. That is something our political leaders seem to grasp. It seems clear that maintaining people’s sense of self-determination is essential in these times of apocalyptic uncertainty. It is common knowledge that we should plan for the worst-case scenario while simultaneously holding out hope for the best.

It is hard to maintain public morale when social media and opinion pieces are always replete with dire predictions of what could go wrong. Those promoting this cause do it sincerely and with the best of intentions, and the professionals engaged are well-known and respected. There are unanticipated and detrimental implications to this technique, however,

Realizing that scientific advice is a mix of opinion and fact has empowered our political leaders to take more ownership of important policy decisions. Because of this, they are better equipped to assess the pandemic’s long-term effects on health, mental health, and the economy.

This development might be interpreted as the triumph of politics over science. As long as the definition of “political” encompasses more than just a narrow set of interests, then it is fair game. My impression is that political leaders are responding to the substantial decline in public morale by tuning in to the need for hope and optimism as well as a balanced approach to policymaking. [page needed]