emotional catharsis (Liu and Liu, 2020). Government In the midst of the pandemic disarray, the government of each country is in the position to guide the population and to execute the necessary interventions to minimize the propagation of the virus. Some strategies consisted of school closures, limited commercial activities, requests that individuals work from home and reduced freedom to use public spaces (Briscese et al., 2020). This kind of leadership has powerful repercussions, with surveys indicating that trust in the government increased from the day the restrictive measures were implemented (Teufel et al., 2020) and that positive behavioral changes were made in response to authorities’ guidance (Atchison et al., 2020). Indeed, it has been demonstrated that government’s interventions of disease prevention and control have significantly increased the likelihood of adoption of protective measures (Duan T. et al., 2020). Moreover, a study showed that, in the United Kingdom, the inclusion of altruism in government’s health messages possibly had a positive effect on wellbeing compared with compulsory orders to stay at home (Holmes et al., 2020). Nonetheless, in regard to the governments’ strategy to mitigate the emotional and behavioral impact of the pandemic, the results may not be as optimistic. During health crises, there seems to be a special focus from authorities in epidemiological and biomedical data (Atlani-Duault et al., 2020). Indeed, a Chinese study investigated the government’s communication with the public through social media and observed an overall inadequate responsiveness to the public’s concerns. The majority of posts consisted of reports on the epidemic situation, disease-related questions, guidelines and prevention advice. Although these are tremendously relevant topics, there seemed to be insufficient instrumental and emotional support for the community (Liao et al., 2020). Moreover, an interesting phenomenon is the “heroization” process (Atlani-Duault et al., 2020; Liao et al., 2020). It can be illustrated by the fact that, in any disaster, there seems to be a social need for attribution of blame, in which certain groups or individuals may be considered heroic figures (Liao et al., 2020). Therefore, in order to balance the complex geographies of hope and blame (Atlani-Duault et al., 2020), the government must be aware of this phenomenon in order to modulate the community’s emotional response to the pandemic, as well as to counteract fake news and misinformation (Atlani-Duault et al., 2020). Another key component to examine in the government’s influence over the population is the establishment of deadlines to the end or the loosening of restricting measures. While the lack of an end date to protective efforts may increase the perceived severity of the situation, which, in turn, may build up compliance to such measures, it is also possible that the absence of a deadline might increase anxiety and other psychological complications over the uncertainty of the future (Briscese et al., 2020). The opposite may also apply: a deadline may also create the impression that the emergency is limited in time and not particularly serious. In addition to that, deadlines may develop expectations in the population that, if not met, might reduce people’s acceptance to the necessary procedures, trust in authorities and compliance to social distancing, a result which is called “social isolation fatigue” (Briscese et al., 2020). Measures Adopted to Minimize