Abstract. — In a matter of weeks during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, epidemiological jargon went from confined in academic contexts to becoming some of the most-used words in the English language. Suddenly jargon like “SARS-CoV-2”, “coronavirus”, and “social distancing” had life and death importance in day-to-day life. The rapid propagation of epidemiological jargon was not without problems, as there was much confusion over what, for example social distancing involves. In this paper, I develop a framework for understanding why jargon like “social distancing” worked in the pages of epidemiological journals but contributed to confusion among the general public. When designing language for public consumption, we need to think about ways in which lexical items themselves carry information. “Social distancing” falls short as a vehicle for social distancing because it fails to adequately communicate information to non-experts about social distancing in the same way that phrases like “only leave the house to buy essentials” or “self-isolation” do, implying, among other things that physical distance was less important than social distance. By studying and understanding the epistemic pathway from lexical items to mental representations about the lexical items’ referents, specialists can design language that mitigates false beliefs and improves concept formation among non-specialists.