Behavioral science has proved to be an effective tool to tackle socio-economic issues and this pandemic has posed a threat not just to health of individuals but also to social and economic machinery at global level. However, the use of behavioral science needs a close observation of the society that we are going to target. It claims that people do not act rationally. Now in order to bring out a possible change in their behavior, we need to study why they behave irrationally and then governments or other influential entities can intervene. Such interventions are known as ‘nudges.’ According to an economist, Richard Thaler and a legal scholar Cass Sunstein, nudge is “any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives”. They are usually indirect interventions which reinforce a certain type of behavioral change in the society. For example, in the beginning when Europe was the epicenter of COVID-19, people started to hoard toilet papers that resulted in empty aisles for days. Later, the governments imposed the restriction of purchasing only a couple of toilet paper packs per person and potentially minimize the harm. Another example is the use of a funny alternative handshake in response to COVID-19. The fight against COVID-19 cannot be won unless we start thinking about others around us Policy makers could make their policies more effective by incorporating nudges as a behavioral tool in their policy design. This tool would be cheap and minimally disruptive. Several governments have used nudges to encourage organ donation and to reduce plastic use. UNDP Egypt has partnered with telecommunication companies to send out SMS messages to encourage good hygiene, physical distancing, countering the spread of misinformation, and staying at home. The nudges can come from the government, private actors like shops or employers – or even from ourselves. Many supermarkets have painted lines or floor signs to mark distance between customers Literature on behavioral economics shows that we are bad at evaluating risk and so far, Pakistan’s response to novel coronavirus supports this result. from mismanaging zaireen coming from Iran to not providing PPEs to healthcare works, our government downplayed the risk and now we are bearing the consequences. Now there are more than 70,000 confirmed cases and the numbers are increasing at an alarming rate. First of all, all the public and private gathering must be banned until we witness a significant decline in the number of confirmed cases. Secondly, Government can use nudges for both positive and negative reinforcement. In Pakistan, religion is an important part of social construct and mosques play a crucial role in this part. Government can ask the imams of these mosques to make regular announcements about the importance of social distancing or the adverse effects it might yield. After almost two weeks of lifting the lockdown restrictions, a statement from a government official came to make it mandatory to wear a mask but it’s never too late to embrace precautions. However, the rule of wearing a mask is still ambiguous, what will be the penalty if someone is not wearing it? Who will provide masks to those who cannot afford to buy it? Perhaps, the government can afford to distribute free masks in underdeveloped areas and also encourage people to use a clean piece of cloth to cover their nose and mouth. Furthermore, it is imperative to use behavioral tools to motivate frontline workers such as healthcare staff and law enforcing institutes by providing them with proper PPEs and other moral and financial incentives. The fight against COVID-19 cannot be won unless we start thinking about others around us. If you refuse to wear a mask, you are putting several individuals at risk. Same goes for people who have an anti-vaccine stance. It’s not just about you, you do not live in isolation, you go out and interact with other people so it is your moral and civil duty to consider the externalities that your decision will yield. People also adapt to what most of the people around them are doing, this is called the ‘bandwagon effect’, for instance, if a person sees that no one is avoiding handshake, they are most likely to succumb to peer pressure. In such uncertain times, we need our government to help by giving accurate information and without provoking anxiety by overstating the risk. When the authorities fall silent, masses take the matter in their hands and the results are always showing two extremes. We are dealing with two groups of people here, first those who think this virus is a hoax or those who think SOPs are ineffective and unnecessary. And then the second group of those people who spread panic and fear by using the worst possible scenarios. Government is responsible to strike the balance between awareness and fear, and hope and worry. There are several means to achieve this. Television and radio can be used for the awareness of older and less educated. Social media can be a useful platform to engage younger people. Infographics, video messages, songs and hygiene campaigns can be used for this purpose. These can be ‘How-to’ videos, photos and animations. However, they need to be proactive. Just like private companies change their advertisement according to the trends, the authorities must be observing the mood and perception of the masses and always be ready to revise their tactics. The struggle is long and it should be ensured that campaigns are adapted to changing situations so they can be sustainable. The writer is a PhD scholar at University of Bremen, Germany