Public Health Emergencies: An “Everybody But Me” Problem
Over the course of the semester, and really all year, we have been discussing public problems and the broad spectrum of behaviors that people exhibit in response. We have looked at air pollution, green space, criminal justice, disease, and more to develop a better and more honest understanding of the different ways people react to these issues. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic (Yes, WHO DG Dr. Tedros Adhanom started using the “p” word last week), we have seen a huge spectrum of responses. Some media outlets use language such as “hoax” (by the democrats, of course) to dismiss the severity of the situation, while others can’t wait to boost their viewership by putting together some of the most bizarre banners I’ve ever seen, complete with eerie music and the word pandemic in the same font used for horror movies. You know, with the blood dripping from the letters. On a personal level, we probably all know some people who are perhaps unnecessarily terrified, refusing to leave their homes. Others insist that since they are young and healthy, they can go about business as usual. I am fascinated by how different peoples “knee-jerk” reactions to the exact same crisis can be. However, there is one common reaction that I see throughout various public emergencies: denial. From crime, to terrorism, to poverty, to virus outbreaks, people usually seem to maintain some sort of distance from the totality and severity of the situation. We often read or watch the news story, and then think to ourselves something along the lines of “wow, I feel so sorry for those poor people over there”, or “thank goodness I don’t have to worry about that”. Not until the moment that the danger is staring us in the face, usually, do we appropriately respond. Let me provide an example.
Reports of a novel coronavirus out of rural Hubei Province in mainland China began to emerge in the international press in the first days and weeks of January. Throughout much of December, Chinese healthcare providers were already treating clusters of patients suffering from pneumonia with unknown causes. Days after the new year, researchers identified a new virus that had infected dozens of people across Asia, while Chinese health officials said they were monitoring the situation to prevent an outbreak. On the 11th of January, the international community learned of the first known fatality associated with what was then called 2019-nCoV (novel human coronavirus - 2019). This earned the story media coverage worldwide. By the end of that week, other nations, including the United States, had reported cases. It was not until January 23rd that the city of Wuhan was closed off from commercial travel. By the end of the month, the World Health Organization, or WHO, declared “a public health emergency of international concern”. Then people started dying all over the world from the novel virus, then people started getting stranded on cruise ships, then the death toll surpassed that of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome outbreak of 2002-2003, then nations like Italy and Iran began experiencing major problems containing and treating the epidemic. And it was not until the middle of February that American media started, for lack of a better word, panicking. By the beginning of March, we learned that this virus may impact how we go to school, and within 72 hours of the first announcement by the administration alluding to some possible changes, we received a letter indicating a full closure of all campus programming for at least three weeks.
Throughout all of this, the main thing that has stuck out to me is this dilemma between underreacting and overreacting, principally that there seemed to be nothing in between. It was as if we went from “novel corona-what now?” to “buy all the toilet paper everywhere, NOW!” in the blink of an eye. The point I guess I’m trying to make here is, why did it take so long for everybody to understand, come to terms with, and respond to this emergency? And will we only have ourselves to blame if it grows completely out of control? Has our blissful ignorance to international events, especially those relating to science, come back to bite us in the rear end?
Reports of a novel coronavirus out of rural Hubei Province in mainland China began to emerge in the international press in the first days and weeks of January. Throughout much of December, Chinese healthcare providers were already treating clusters of patients suffering from pneumonia with unknown causes. Days after the new year, researchers identified a new virus that had infected dozens of people across Asia, while Chinese health officials said they were monitoring the situation to prevent an outbreak. On the 11th of January, the international community learned of the first known fatality associated with what was then called 2019-nCoV (novel human coronavirus - 2019). This earned the story media coverage worldwide. By the end of that week, other nations, including the United States, had reported cases. It was not until January 23rd that the city of Wuhan was closed off from commercial travel. By the end of the month, the World Health Organization, or WHO, declared “a public health emergency of international concern”. Then people started dying all over the world from the novel virus, then people started getting stranded on cruise ships, then the death toll surpassed that of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome outbreak of 2002-2003, then nations like Italy and Iran began experiencing major problems containing and treating the epidemic. And it was not until the middle of February that American media started, for lack of a better word, panicking. By the beginning of March, we learned that this virus may impact how we go to school, and within 72 hours of the first announcement by the administration alluding to some possible changes, we received a letter indicating a full closure of all campus programming for at least three weeks.
Throughout all of this, the main thing that has stuck out to me is this dilemma between underreacting and overreacting, principally that there seemed to be nothing in between. It was as if we went from “novel corona-what now?” to “buy all the toilet paper everywhere, NOW!” in the blink of an eye. The point I guess I’m trying to make here is, why did it take so long for everybody to understand, come to terms with, and respond to this emergency? And will we only have ourselves to blame if it grows completely out of control? Has our blissful ignorance to international events, especially those relating to science, come back to bite us in the rear end?
As I ponder our society's response to this virus outbreak, and other types of public emergencies, I have a few more questions. Feel free to answer any number of them.
- While we should always strive to respect each other's points of view, do we have any kind of obligation to stand up when people's opinions threaten public health and safety?
- More broadly, to what extent should we sacrifice freedom for safety?
- Under what conditions is it warranted?
- Is there already ‘freedom over safety’ legislation that you do not agree with?
- What measures would be too drastic to combat this pandemic?
- In what ways have you seen people respond irrationally or irresponsibly?
- Additional thoughts?
I agree with Julian, I’m not quite sure where the turning point was between the casual “so what happens now” to (in a very not calm, screaming voice) “EVERYBODY REMAIN CALM.” I think it took so long for people to understand the magnitude of the situation because they were afraid of what would happen when they acknowledged it. I’m not even sure people have come to terms with the situation. For example, some relatives are planning on having their wedding in the next two weeks and have not mentioned anything close to the possibility of cancelling/rescheduling. Some people find comfort in the “ignorance is bliss” phrase and are really taking that literally. People are frustrated, myself included, that life has had to be put on pause. One thing we can do to “press play” would be to acknowledge the situation for what it is and to follow the necessary precautions (if you are able). One thing I am worried about though is how will we respond once we reach the point when it is okay to resume daily life. Will we overreact and say that we’ll hold off a little longer “just to be safe” or will we actually have the courage to resume daily life.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know to what extent we should sacrifice freedom for safety but I know that we should do so at some point. One of the reasons for why we have certain laws is the safety of the population. But I think there must be a cap on how far you can go with safety as well. I’ve seen videos of people wearing protective gear dragging others into and out of their homes for forceful quarantining. There is a difference between requesting people to stay in their homes and forcing them. I think people are afraid of this entire situation because it is so unfamiliar. When people ask questions, they don’t get answers because people just don’t know. An example of this fear would be when I went to the store a few days ago. I had heard of the empty shelves but I had also heard of news websites editing the photos and cropping out the stocked aisles. When I walked into the store, nothing looked out of the ordinary, but once I got to the toilet-paper section, the canned food section, the non-perishable section, even the popcorn section, I saw empty shelves for myself. People are afraid and they want to feel safe and secure. Maybe having 20 packs of toilet-paper makes them feel safe because they feel prepared.
I work at Trader Joe's (surprise, surprise, I never talk about it, I know) and I have seen SUCH a spectrum of people acting irrationally and irresponsibly. I had one lady come up to us and accuse us of not sanitizing the register stations often enough (which, by the way, we have been sanitizing them as often as possible, no need to fear) and get upset with us when we told her what safety precautions we were taking. On the other hand, I had a very frail old woman tell me she didn't see what the big deal was all about because Coronavirus wouldn't actually hurt anybody.... yeah. People have been lining up hours before we open in an attempt to stockpile toilet paper - when we tell them that we're limiting the amount of toilet paper / eggs / beans / other highly valued items per person, some customers have been responding as if we are the ones being selfish. They have also gotten frustrated with the crew members for the lack of food on the shelves, as if it's our fault that people have been buying out the entire store mere hours after we open! Overall, I think the coronavirus outbreak has caused some people to forget basic human decency. Everyone's emotions are heightened and many of us are stressed out to no end, but that doesn't mean it's alright to take those emotions out on people around you, and especially not people in service to you.
ReplyDeleteWe do have an obligation to stand up when people’s opinions threaten public health and safety. Everyone has their individual rights, and they are entitled to have their human rights. However, when an individual’s rights impede on the general safety of the public or infringes upon other people’s rights, that individual should lose that power. I think that in order to have safety we need to sacrifice our freedom right now. The only way that the spread of coronavirus will die down is if people can limit their outside interactions. Right now, not everyone is staying inside, and that is cancelling out people’s efforts to combat the spread. But on a different note, being forcibly removed from one’s house to be quarantined crosses the line. If an individual could possibly have coronavirus, I think that individual is just fine being isolated at home. People have responded irrationally or irresponsibly by purging on goods including food, toilet paper, etc. I have seen countless videos of people fighting over items at the store, and I don’t think that we have reached those stages of every man for himself.
ReplyDeleteAll of these questions really stump me. One of the countless difficulties and hardships during this worrisome time is the real uncertainty of the situation on all levels. Not only do we, as civilians, not know whats going on, what counts as overreacting, what counts as under-reacting, or what we should be doing to protect ourselves and combat the pandemic, but to a large extent, neither do the powers that are supposed to be ready and prepared for such a situation. We saw this uncertainty and panic in the Poly community last week, which, in this case, can be a microcosm of larger society. When it was announced that our schooling system would go online for the week before spring break, nobody, not even the administration, really knew what that would look like. The administration, the teachers, the students, and the families of Poly were all given conflicting information about what the week would look like in terms of online schooling, and it was largely coming from each other. The administration made decisions without really knowing exactly how those decisions would pan out and without accounting for the inevitable changes in protocol that would inherently come, but the rest of the Poly community was also responsible for filling in gaps in knowledge when they really didn’t know and for passing on information that was outdated or untrue. The inherent uncertainty in the situation influenced people to spread ‘fake news’ out of panic, but the panic others observe often makes them revert to similar habits; it seems like a bit of a cycle to me.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf we took the situation more seriously earlier, we would not be having to deal with what we are dealing with now. I feel that Americans maintain an ignorant bliss which entails the belief of US soil being immune to international crises. I have also been a person with this mindset. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has proven to many Americans, including myself, that it is a real threat to the public health of the United States. Now, we are having to deal with the consequences of not treating the beginnings of the Coronavirus outbreak with seriousness.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to freedom vs safety, I believe that some freedoms being taken away for a very short period of time is alright if it leads to a positive future. That being said, I really mean a short period of time. I want to live life to the fullest and get as many experiences as I can while I can. With limitations on freedom, this becomes impossible. In the end, is a life without freedom worth living? In my opinion, there is no point to life if we live it with strict restrictions which don't improve the overall happiness of the people. Yes, we need to combat Coronavirus, but after a while of combatting without any drastic results towards a positive outcome being show, should we continue limiting our freedom to live life to the fullest? You only live once, and every second is valuable.
Plenty of people have responded incredibly irresponsibly to this crisis. The major trend I have seen which I consider incredibly inappropriate and self centered is people over buying products to the point where grocery stores are left empty. Plenty of people do not have the financial means to stock up on items, and therefore aren't able to partake in the overbuying of items due to panic. As a result, they are left without food and toiletries. Hopefully, this aspect of the panic ends soon.
Overall, I really dislike the Coronavirus. I am very lucky that I am healthy, financially secure, safe, and alive, but I still want the Coronavirus to be out of my life for good.
1. While we should always strive to respect each other's points of view, do we have any kind of obligation to stand up when people's opinions threaten public health and safety?
ReplyDelete1. We should always strive to respect each other’s points of view because if people do not then having a social discourse and solving problems becomes difficult and almost impossible. I don’t think this is the case every time but I know that personally I have a hard time always respecting other people’s point of view and discounting it because I hold mine to a higher regard, this isn’t to say that people never respect each others point of view rather the most important part is to actually try and “strive” to do so.
2. I think people do have an obligation to stand up when people’s opinions threaten public health and safety. The recent social media backlash towards those who decide to travel and not self quarantine is a good example. Celebrities and everyday people are speaking out at the inaction of those who are putting immunodeficient and the elderly at risk.
2. More broadly, to what extent should we sacrifice freedom for safety? Under what conditions is it warranted
1. Freedom is awesome, I take advantage of the freedoms that my family has given me, my government has given me, and my school has given me all the time.
2. Sacrificing freedom is really hard, but when the benefits outweigh the negatives I think it’s easier to feel good about that sacrifice.
3. When people take advantage of freedoms though and break the trust between one party and another I think that’s when someone has to step in and take away those freedoms.
3. Is there already ‘freedom over safety’ legislation that you do not agree with?
1. I can’t think of any freedom over safety legislation that I disagree with but I can think of safety over freedom legislation that I disagree with.
4. What measures would be too drastic to combat this pandemic?
1. I think a mandatory quarantine and a public curfew would be too drastic.
5. In what ways have you seen people respond irrationally or irresponsibly?
1. Personally on Friday I made the expert decision of:
1. Going out on a date to a restaurant (which was empty but still a public place)
2. going to a movie (the theatre was still empty but a bad idea)
3. And then finally going to a party where I knew only one person there and probably shared beverages with people which is a bad idea.
I think we are well within our right to check other people when they do something that could endanger someone else. For example, some people are ignoring calls for social distancing because they are young and won’t be impacted by coronavirus, those who ignorantly buy the whole stock of sanitizers, soaps, and toilet paper in stores, leaving the rest of their communities more vulnerable, and those who spread false information just for some internet attention.
ReplyDeleteIt is much more beneficial for us to sacrifice some freedoms for a couple of months than to rapidly spread a dangerous virus. In times like these, sometimes we have to do what's best for our communities, rather than our enjoyment.
I think locking people in their houses like we are seeing in Italy is a little bit of an overkill. Rather than imprisoning people for being out of their house “without a good reason”, a plan like San Francisco where people are free to go out but just not gather in long groups is superior.
Yesterday afternoon Orange County announced serious restrictions to civilian and commercial life. Until March 31st, "gatherings of any size outside of a single living unit are prohibited, all bars and other establishments that serve alcohol and not food must close and restaurants may offer food through curbside service or delivery only." I've had discussions with family and friends about the benefits of an authoritarian government, like China's, amidst a public health crisis. The general consensus is that China's response to COVID-19, which has included locking down over 50 million people and rapidly constructing makeshift hospitals, has been impressive and effective. Certain news outlets and journalist publications (maybe even in an effort to combat surging racial profiling and xenophobia and even anti-communist/anti-socialist rhetoric) have lauded the resoluteness and decisiveness of Chinese government officials. The WHO has also publicly appreciated Chinese public health officials' transparency and willingness to mobilize. Beyond a mandated quarantine and emergency hospitals, China has also centralized domestic media and has allocated public health workers and volunteers across the country, steps a democratic government like that of the United States would never take. But in order for this centralization to be effective, vulnerable populations – in this case, the entire population – must trust completely the information and the approaches presented by Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. This is getting complicated but basically the WHO is saying that a bottom-up approach, meaning government partnerships with grassroots civil service organizations (CSOs), will be the most effective means of treating those in need and maintaining peace among those who don't as CSOs already have a relationship with the communities they serve; in other words, there's a trust the people don't share with their government. The problem in China is that the CCP has a complicated history with CSOs and most community organizations report directly to the party. All this to say, it's not so clear that authoritarian advantage is actually advantageous in the long-run. While China is able to maneuver public and governmental response to the outbreak right now, supplies are diminishing and there are questions left unanswered. Mutual trust and transparent media coverage, things both China and the US lack, will define the scope of COVID-19. Vote Bernie.
ReplyDeleteThese are all tough questions. I don't think I would call it an "obligation" to stand up to people's opinions, but I hope we would encourage people who might still be in denial to educate themselves on the virus and then make a decision. Ultimately, we can't control what people do. I've noticed my thinking about social distancing change quite a bit in the past 2-3 days. Right when they announced classes would be moving online, I was still thinking that I would go out and hang out with friends. Maybe not in a large public place, but still see people. Yesterday, when I did go out, I felt strange and started to realize that social distancing was probably the smartest and safest thing to do. I knew that my dad was in the older age group that is at higher risk, and I realized that I can't risk bringing anything home, even if I think I'm just with people that I know weren't with anyone who had the virus. At this point, I hope people aren't looking at it as a sacrifice and instead more as a thing that they should do as decent humans (hypocritical a bit, I know, as I went out yesterday). As for people acting irrationally, I think the mass buying is irrational and just detrimental to the people who can't afford to stock up. There is no reason to buy food for more than a couple weeks. And maybe my family uses less toilet paper than others out there, but if you're going through more than one package (is that how they're measured?) in a week, I think you have other, more pressing issues than Coronavirus.
ReplyDeleteYesterday, I was viewing Instagram stories when I came upon a celebrity’s story whereupon she had shared a Youtuber’s post, which was a video of them ranting about quarantining/social distancing. The main point of this Youtuber’s rant was that as a person existing in today’s world right now, it is extremely insensitive, disrespectful, and unethical to refuse to stay indoors, self-quarantine, or practice social distancing and just go about your life in the manner in which you used to. In other words, his point was that staying indoors right now is not an option — everyone MUST be doing it, and it ought to have happened earlier. I personally agreed with what he was saying in the rant, but what I’m curious about is whether or not it is my place (or just any person’s in general) to tell someone what they must do / must not do and how they must act right now, in regards to the COVID-19 situation. Right now, I am pretty much in full self-quarantining mode. To clarify: I am not feeling ill, and none of my family members are, but at least from what I have heard/gleaned, the best practice as of right now is to do your best to stay indoors and away from others. Don’t quote me on any of this by the way, I’m just describing my current approach/my family’s current approach to this whole situation. So, with that, what should I do if I see a friend on social media posting content showing them totally going against recommended behavior/protocol. Let’s say they are getting on an international flight just for fun or going to a public pool — any sort of activity that has been both ill-advised and proven to be risky/dangerous for themselves and potentially for others. Should I say something? Is it my place to let them know that their actions could be potentially dangerous? A lot of ethical questions have arisen because of COVID-19 that I think are definitely worth exploring.
ReplyDelete“Points of view” aren’t the most important thing when it comes to public safety. I’ve seen people taking advantage of cheap plane tickets and using the coronavirus as an excuse to travel because they are “young” and “healthy.” The disregard for health and safety is infuriating. But I have seen people sticking up to this highlighting that we can get through this if EVERYONE does their part. My littlest brother was born a few days ago so I will be doing my part and keeping him safe by not leaving my house or seeing new people in person. It is my responsibility to keep the people that I love (and complete strangers for that matter) safe. Even though I personally feel relatively safe, I want to do my part to keep those around me happy and healthy.
ReplyDeleteWhile we are losing our normal everyday freedoms, for now the sacrifice is completely ethical and is doing way more good than harm (healthwise, the economic conversation is way different).
^^^This didn’t really answer the questions but I have a lot of feelings and am feeling a lot of confusion regarding this situation, I need more time to think/research before I can answer them well.
Our nation's tendency to rapidly transition from underreacting to overreacting is something I've never really noticed, but now that you mention it, I couldn't agree with you more Julian. Because of the passive presence and impact of media, it's clear we can be overwhelmed with information (especially if you're hearing varying stories). I think the reason we go from calm to panicking so quickly is because we try to suppress bad information. It's our reflex to not fully absorb bad news. We try not to realize the severity of a situation until it's too large of an issue to ignore. Then all the fears and worries flood in, and we move into a state of panic.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteOverall, I hope that it does not come to the point where we have to sacrifice freedom for safety, however, if it does, I would hope that the government does not forcefully quarantine individuals and instead gives every person the freedom to choose how they would like to deal with the situation. I think the more pressing issue would be how we would deal with the elderly as they would be the population hit the hardest by the virus. While I do not currently disagree with anything, I would disagree with Los Angeles being quarantined.
I think that people were not taking the Corona virus so seriously until Friday last week when schools started shutting down and people began to stay in their houses. In class a week or two prior to this when I heard that other families were stocking up on food and water, I laughed because I thought it was ridiculous and that the situation was not nearly that serious. Now, my family has done the same and I haven't left the house in nearly a week. Although the corona virus may not be a huge threat to me personally, I think that if we can, it is important for as many people as possible to maintain social distancing for the sake of the health of others, especially the elderly who are more likely to be effected by the virus. I have never experienced something like this, and so far I am just following what I am told to do and watching what happens.
ReplyDelete