The deadly effects of a disaster can be reduced by implementing the following vital strategies: anticipating, educating, and informing those at risk (Rambau, Beukes & Frazer 2012). The WHO (2012), defines risk communication in line with the postulations of Rambau et al. (2012), stating that risk communication is the exchange of real-time information, advice, and opinions between experts and the people facing threats to their health, economic, and social well-being. This kind of communication aims to enable people at risk to make informed decisions to protect themselves and their families. Risk communication shapes people’s perceptions of risk and influences their disaster preparedness and response actions. Therefore, risk communication is an important component of disaster risk management (Shaw et al. 2013).

Key to the effectiveness of risk communication is ensuring adequate comprehension, accurate perception of the disseminated information, and the use of trusted sources of information (Chimusoro et al. 2018). Besides, risk communication aims to share information to change beliefs and behaviour (Naik, Ashmed & Edwards 2012). Another dimension of risk communication is the feasibility of the actions recommended and the population’s ability to apply these actions (Glik 2007). Governments can activate emergency response mechanisms that aim to reduce the risk at hand, in this case, COVID-19. Risk reduction through risk communication is therefore based on a community’s perceptions, concerns, and beliefs. Also, their knowledge and practices in identifying rumours and misinformation during an emergency.

Globally, the increase in disaster declarations has subsequently augmented the significant need of disseminating appropriate and relevant risk information. Historical epidemics, for example, the 2008 and 2009 cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe, reveal the benefits of risk communication. Chimusoro et al. (2018) found that despite the economic challenges Zimbabwe faced during the epidemic, the country was able to contain the cholera outbreak through dissemination of risk communication messages and containment strategies. In the face of the COVID-19, countries such as Singapore, South Korea, and Rwanda put in place mitigatory strategies to curb the spread of the virus, which includes the execution of effective risk communication. In Singapore, a combination of factors such as, top-class health systems, tracing and containment measures, and effective communication contributed to controlling the virus spread (Heijmans 2020). South Korea contained COVID-19 without a lockdown, one of the drastic regulations imposed by most countries. South Korea was swift and aggressive with mass testing through drive and walk-through testing stations and vigorous contact tracing. However, South Korea mostly attributed its success to social capital, volunteerism, the Korean people’s compliance, and the government’s proactiveness, openness, and credibility (Investec 2020). In Africa, Rwanda was also prompt in its response to the first case of COVID-19: 5 days after the first case was reported, they controlled the spread of the virus through tracing, isolation, testing, and lockdown (Moore 2020).

In comparing South Africa to these countries, the researchers realised that Singapore was probably successful because their measures were more inclusive than those of South Africa. The Singaporeans adapted better to the COVID-19 restrictions as compared to the African countries (Kuguyo, Kengne & Dandara 2020). Besides, South Africa’s health system is flawed compared to Singapore’s health standards. South Africa and South Korea have similarities in the measures employed, but even though South Africa went into lockdown only 10 days after the first report of a positive case on 5 March 2020 (Mdeni 2020), it still experiences difficulties in controlling the spread of the virus. The low compliance in South Africa because of poverty could be the reason for the difficulties in controlling the spread of the coronavirus (Kuguyo et al. 2020).² Despite the overwhelming regulations and risk messages communicated and their success in controlling the virus in some countries, South Africa is yet to see adherence to these strategies before the success thereof can be measured.

Some population groups in South Africa disputed some of the COVID-19 strategies imposed because of the challenges they presented. Amongst several disputed challenges, social distancing was one of them; because of the informal settlement residential status of some South Africans being a prime reason behind it (Nyashanu, Simbanegavi & Gibson 2020). Regardless of the challenges, South Africa communicated many risk communication messages and regulations (see Table 1) since the national disaster declaration on 15 March 2020. Some of the regulations announced were to stay enforced during the national state of disaster and some of them have since been revoked or changed (Republic of South Africa 2020c).

The Mangaung Metropolitan Disaster Management Centre is the local disaster management centre, which is based in Bloemfontein. It coordinates disaster events at the local level and supports the provincial and NDMCs. During the pandemic, their expected role was to coordinate departments like the South African Police Services (SAPS) and the Department of Health. They also had to ensure compliance with the COVID-19 regulations at public gatherings such as funerals or church gatherings. Other roles were the monitoring of infection progression, development of reports, public awareness and serving on various COVID-19 committees. Since the disaster management institution is a primary stakeholder in responding to COVID-19, their visibility at the local level in ensuring adherence to risk communication is important. Ther were also entrusted with improving the trustworthiness and credibility of the risk communication initiatives

Given the nature and the living dynamics of some South African citizens such as culture, beliefs, norms, living environment, and economic status, these may hinder the consumption of the risk messages communicated and regulations imposed. In turn, the circumstances for example the lack of running water instil receptivity resistance or challenges among many community members. Receptivity resistance to COVID-19 is when an individual is not able and willing to take in information or an idea. Based on the National Hand Hygiene Behaviour Change Strategy 2016–2020, a 2012 General Household Survey found that about 11% of South African households have inadequate sanitation services. It was also found that 26% of households have deteriorated sanitation infrastructure (DoH 2017; UNICEF 2017). Additionally, the survey discovered that most South Africans live in settlements exposed to a high risk of contracting water, sanitation, and hygiene-related diseases. Khayelitsha in Cape Town is one of the areas in South Africa that do not have access to sufficient water and sanitation facilities. The residents live in fear of contracting the virus because they have received the ‘wash your hands for 20 seconds’ risk communication message, but the lack of access to water affects the call to action (Lali et al. 2020).

In Bloemfontein, high-density suburbs such as Batho and Bochabela have blocked and broken sewerage pipes. The water quality is poor and in most informal settlements there is limited access to water (Pretorius & DeVilliers 2002). In a 2016 Community Survey, at least 52% of households have piped water inside the yard, 39% receive piped water inside the dwelling, 4% receive piped water on a community stand, 2% in a community tap, and the rest obtain water from elsewhere (Cooperative Governance & Traditional Affairs 2020). These results show that at least the water situation in Bloemfontein is not a deterring factor when it comes to responding to COVID-19. This is when, South Africa, in its entirety, faces water challenges because of failing infrastructure as well as water shortages caused by drought in the last few years. These difficulties left the government concerned about the spread of the COVID-19 virus (Harrisberg & Peyton 2020).

Risk messages communicating social distancing might prove difficult amongst communities that are family-oriented and practice a collectivist culture. Lali et al. (2020) found that social distancing poses challenges because respondents in their study said: ‘The virus makes me scared because we have also been told to limit kisses, while in our culture we often greet and kiss others’. People’s collectivist culture might also affect the regulation of isolation, quarantine, and distancing from sick people. People want to live with their families. Hence, the idea of being isolated brings uncertainty and fear. For example, in Italy, the ‘social contact matrix’ has been considered one reason for the spread of the virus, especially among older people (Pietromarchi 2020). Pietromarchi (2020) also states that there is an intense interaction between the Italian elderly and the younger population compared to other countries. South Africa is, therefore, not unique to this collectivist culture.

Nevertheless, South Africa faces a more significant challenge because it also has a housing crisis, with more than 4 million people living in informal settlements (Royston & Ebrahim 2019; Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa [SERI] 2018). The nature of these informal settlements confronts social distancing and poses barriers to other risk messages and regulations, creating an enormous challenge to mitigating the spread of the virus.

Alcohol consumption was also discouraged through the banning of the sale of alcohol. The South African police minister, Bheki Cele, in a press briefing on 25 March 2020, asked South Africans to stay sober for 21 days (Staff Writer 2020). The government believes that alcohol consumption leads to an increase in trauma patients in hospitals, disrupting the availability of health facilities for coronavirus patients. The consumption of alcohol also reduces people’s adherence to keeping social distance from other people. Therefore, a ban on the sale and distribution of alcohol was effective as of 26 March 2020. The ban was lifted on 01 June 2020 and re-instated on 12 July 2020 (Arthur 2020), effective until 17 August 2020. The next ban, to lessen the cases in trauma units, lasted from 29 December 2020 until 2 February 2021. Based on the WHO’s data collected in 2016, South Africans are the fifth-highest alcohol consumers globally, further classifying South African alcohol consumers as heavy binge drinkers (Staff Writer 2019). However, Wilkinson and Makgato (2016) disputed these conclusions, arguing that there are discrepancies in the WHO’s statistics. Regardless of whether there are discrepancies or not, South Africans alcohol consumption is profuse as was seen from the significant number of panic buyers stocking up on alcohol before and after each ban on alcohol sales (Head 2020a). The establishment of an illegal trade during each ban is also an indication of the drinking habits of South Africans.

The government also placed a ban on public gatherings. Most religious groups viewed this regulation as a provocation. Bishop Bheki Timothy Ngcobo of Nkanyezi Church of Christ defied this call to action and said, ‘This COVID-19 is Satan who is attempting to stop Christians from going to praise God as we wish’ (Hans 2020; Head 2020b; Manyathela 2020). A significant number of pastors shared similar opinions in defiance of this ban. For example, the South African Zionist Church described the ban as Christians’ being oppressed (Hans 2020; Head 2020b; Manyathela 2020). After several consultations between the South African Government and some religious groups and churches, they reached a concession with specific regulations. A maximum of 50 people were allowed at a church service. The need for traditional activities such as initiations also posed as a receptivity barrier to the risk communication process as traditional leaders resisted the ban on initiations and other cultural gatherings.

Globally, COVID-19 regulations brought on political controversies, especially when political leaders made public announcements without scientific backing. For example, Donald Trump and Kevin McCarthy named COVID-19 the ‘Chinese virus’, perpetuating racism (Nichols 2020). In this case, political interference can be perceived as a barrier to risk communication success.

Disseminating risk messages and imposed regulations were and probably still are the best methods of combating the virus (South African Government News Agency 2020). Empowering the public with information encouraged them to practice necessary precaution measures. However, adherence to the risk messages remains a significant challenge for the South African Government since people continue to get infected with the virus. While the government planned the best ways to communicate the COVID-19 risk information, another task was to encourage the population to change behaviours and to fight the unwillingness to accept change. Simultaneously, the government fought ‘infodemics’, which is defined as an over-abundance of information, some of it accurate and some inaccurate, making it difficult for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when needed (Zarocostas 2020). Misinformation is the most significant barrier. The government must urge the public only to consume relevant information from credible sources only. In South Africa, only the President, the Minister of Health, and other relevant Ministers were disseminating risk communication messages. These leaders must reach out to other influential leaders on a local and communal level (e.g. church leaders and traditional leaders), to entrust them with further dissemination of information in their communities’ languages. Ultimately, to combat some of the receptivity barriers, the South African Government needs to learn from other countries, for example, Singapore, which imposed its regulations inclusively like imposing the screening of everyone with flu-like symptoms was easy because of the high access to health facilities. Regardless, a combination of risk communication and lawfully enforced regulations prove to be an efficient risk reduction method (South African Government News Agency 2020; WHO 2019).

Important to the study was the need to understand if the government’s and media’s agenda led to behavioural change through the public complying with the risk messages and regulations communicated. Therefore, the ensuing discussion examines a social science theory that relates to the study investigation.

The media has the power to influence the significance and prevalence of a particular public agenda topic, such as the public awareness of the risks and impact of COVID-19. The AST’ argues that the media shapes how the public should perceive an issue instead of them making their own inferences. This is mainly because of the frequent and prominent coverage of an issue (McCombs & Shaw 1972). As a result, there is a possibility that the public will perceive an aspect essential or not essential based on media coverage or lack thereof. Coronavirus disease 2019 is one such issue that has received wide media coverage and the public has perceived it as a salient issue.

Subsequently, ‘Policy agenda-setting’, ‘Media agenda-setting’, and ‘Public agenda-setting’ are variables that influence the AST (Protess & McCombs 2019). For example, the magnitude and obtrusive nature of COVID-19 influenced the public’s agenda or perception of COVID-19, causing panic and fear. In turn, this led the public to push their own agenda, which in most instances was based on fake news. As a result, the spread of fake news propelled official media channels to sensitise the public to fake news’s harmful impact. Concerning policy agenda-setting, the South African Government imposed a regulation on the prosecution of anyone that creates and spreads fake news (Republic of South Africa 2020d). The agenda of the South African Government was to mitigate the impact and prevent the spread of COVID-19. This agenda influenced the media to frequently report aspects related to the virus, mostly communicating about the risks and impact of COVID-19, the increase in cases, newly imposed regulations, and other issues the government wanted the public to know.

Here we observe a symbiotic relationship amongst these three variables. The media needs official information from the government, and the government requires media coverage on a certain issue, in this case, COVID-19. While the public is the consumer of the information, they are also entitled to know what is happening in their vicinity. Again, the public can also influence what the media will report on. This symbiotic relationship among these variables should be taken note of in risk communication planning.

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, the University of the Free State with reference number: UFS-HSD2020/1303/1609.

The respondents indicated that there is poor communication between the Mangaung Metropolitan Disaster Management Centre and the Bloemfontein community at the local level. These respondents would expect the local disaster management centre to be visible because the Disaster Management Act, 57 of 2002 was used to declare the virus a disaster and the fact that disaster management is the coordinating function. Research by Wiggill (2013) revealed that local-level disaster risk communication mechanisms are non-existent in South Africa (Van Niekerk 2014). Therefore, at the local level, the media and the government must continue driving the COVID-19 risk communication agenda through community radios, local newspapers and through traditional methods. An increase in awareness campaigns in Bloemfontein, especially in local languages and use of traditional communication methods are needed, stated the respondents. The use of a local language makes the risk message easy to understand and also the population feels that the risk communicator is solicitous. Traditional methods of communication like regular loud-hailers or billboards in the residential areas might help with full access to the risk messages.

Also, the visibility of the disaster management centre, leading the dissemination of information at the local level as a recognised COVID-19 response organisation might reduce some receptivity barriers. The respondents argued that the government should inform the communities about the institutions that play a significant role in their lives, with specific reference to the disaster management centre. The reason for this request could be because they will be able to report issues of non-compliance or requests for resources. Some of the responsibilities of the disaster management centre are to obtain resources during a disaster and monitor compliance to regulations imposed (Section 27(2)(a) of the Disaster Management Act).

The respondents feel that although people might adhere to the regulations, they will still be infected. The respondents feel like this because adherence to the regulations is not possible 100%. People tend to relax when they are with people they trust (family, friends, and colleagues), thereby disregarding social distancing, or perhaps certain situations does not allow adherence to the regulations, like when grocery shopping, inter alia.

Furthermore, the respondents feel that the government should enforce more stringent laws on crowd gathering, that the wearing of a face shield alone without a mask should be prohibited. Medical experts believe that a plastic face shield is inadequate for protecting oneself from the virus (Cesak 2020). The respondents believe that the government should show the public the effects of COVID-19, just like they did with HIV and/or AIDS. Unfortunately, for this respondent scare tactics have been proven to not work anymore (Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health 2015). A more non-sensitive and scientific approach might be the best approach in risk communication.