Coronavirus – Andrew Fiala, Ph.D.

April 23, 2020May 5, 2020

The Pandemic Dilemma

We are witnessing a “pandemic dilemma” similar to the classic “prisoner’s dilemma.” A growing number of people want to be “liberated” from stay-at-home orders, including apparently, President Trump. The desire to end coronavirus restrictions is reasonable. People need to get back to work and get on with their lives.

But if we end stay-at-home restrictions too soon, the pandemic will continue and we’ll need more restrictions. Cooperation is necessary, along with a long-term perspective. Selfish action in the short term will prevent us from getting what we desire in the long run.

The Problem of an Early Win

Pandemic restrictions have apparently worked. The curve is “flattening.” Although the number of deaths is appalling, this has fallen short of the most-dire predictions. That’s good news. But the effectiveness of stay-at-home orders makes it seem that they are not necessary.

It is tempting to declare a win too early. The permanent solution involves vaccines and effective treatments. The stay-at-home strategy only slows the spread of the disease. If everyone stays home, the threat decreases. It will then seem that there is no need to stay home. But to re-open things too soon will increase the pandemic risk. That would make it necessary to extend stay-at-home orders.

Short-term thinking will lead to long-term problems.

Cheating can be Contagious

As the threat dissipates, there will be more cheaters and resisters. The irony of this is that cheating and resisting may prolong the pandemic.

The longer this goes on, the more likely a further negative spiral. As patience wears thin more people will be tempted to cheat and protest. But a resurgent pandemic would lead to an extended need to stay at home.

As frustration increases, cooperation decreases. If you are staying at home, you will view defectors with resentment—but also maybe a bit of envy. Resentment causes distrust and polarization. The resisters view those staying at home as mindless sheep. The stay-at-homers view the resisters as ignorant fools. Cooperation becomes difficult.

The Problem of Polarization

Polarization in the United States was already a problem. This crisis has amplified it. Some trust science. Others do not. Some think the president’s incompetence has made the crisis worse. Others think that this is a “deep state” campaign to bring Trump down.

Our divisions will likely intensify as the economic and political consequences of the pandemic unfolds. When distrusts grow, there is a tendency to focus on short-term self-interest, while blaming others. This makes cooperative action more unlikely, which causes a further negative cycle.

Hopelessness exacerbates distrust and makes it difficult to focus on long-term cooperation. These negative feedback loops make long-term success seem farther away. At some point, people begin to shrug and say “what the hell, might as well join the cheaters.” When the Titanic is sinking and there is no hope for rescue, you might as well enjoy the ride (a point I’ve made in more detail elsewhere).

If that happens, we really are sunk.

The Solution

Philosophers have long pondered the problem of cooperation. One source is Hegel. I won’t bore you with the details. But in Hegel’s “master-slave dialectic,” when rival parties struggle for recognition, they end up failing to get what they want.

The solution is a more robust sense of community. This is similar to the solution of the classic prisoner’s dilemma, where two people struggle to choose wisely when they lack information and trust. The solution is solidarity and trust, along with a shared source of information.

Hope is also essential. We need a reason to hope that things will improve when we work together. The good news is that there is a reason for hope: cooperative action has slowed the pandemic.

Community, truth, and hope are cherished goods of human life. Without them, we are thrown back into a chaotic world, where narrowly focused self-interest prevents us from cooperating and actually getting what we want. Philosophers have made it clear what the solution is. But building community is up to us. We, the people, must choose to cooperate, seek truth, and find reasons to hope that in the long run solidarity pays off.

April 10, 2020April 10, 2020

Coronavirus Pandemic is Not a War

A pandemic is not a war.

To call the pandemic a war shows a failure of imagination.

President Trump claimed he is a wartime president. The Governor of North Carolina said, “This pandemic is a war, and we need the armor to fight it.” Finance gurus want to issue coronavirus war bonds. Foreign policy pundits are saying absurd things like, “We need to fight a holding action on the economic front.” The Head of NATO said we are fighting “a common invisible enemy.”

This is nonsense. Wars are intentional actions that deliberately kill human beings. An enemy is a person serving a government. War is a political act involving the conscious decisions of moral agents.

A virus is a force of nature. It has no intentionality. A pandemic has no political agenda. There are no enemies here. There is no one to negotiate with. There will be no peace treaty.

The war metaphor makes us think in nationalistic terms. But a pandemic is a global problem. Nationalism prevents cooperative action. We don’t need a wartime president. We need a global team of scientists and doctors.

The war analogy creates a morbid fascination with body counts. This leads to lame statistical analogies. People have compared pandemic deaths to the numbers killed in wars. The Surgeon General said this will be “our Pearl Harbor moment, our 9/11 moment.”

These comparisons are uninformative. Better comparisons would consider those killed by other infectious diseases, say AIDS or Ebola.

This fascination with body counts implies that that we “win” when the count goes down. But each death represents an infinite loss. Dead people are not tally marks on some perverse scorecard. Instead of counting body bags, let’s talk more about grief, mourning, and resilience.

The myths of war, as I have argued elsewhere, make it seems that a soldier’s death is vindicated by victory and the justice of the cause. But in a pandemic, there is no justification or vindication.

The rhetoric of war also gets infused with patriot and religious language that becomes propagandistic.

When President Trump sent the Navy ship, Comfort, to New York,, he published a patriotic video and tweeted: “With the courage of our doctors and nurses, with the skill of our scientists and innovators, with the determination of the American People, and with the grace of God, WE WILL WIN THIS WAR .”

Again, the idea of a war to be won is absurd. Also absurd is the idea that the grace of God is involved in this, or in any battle. Hurray for the doctors and scientists. But the real work is about healing and mitigation, not about defeating an enemy. This is an unglamorous effort, conducted one person at a time in sick beds and hospitals. The American people don’t need to put on armor or steel themselves for battle. We need to stay home, wash our hands, and wear masks in public.

Unfortunately, our imaginations are infected by militarism. Patriotism is tightly woven around war. We cheer on the war machine, despite morally problematic and endless wars. If the “war” against coronavirus is like the war in Afghanistan, we are in trouble.

Nor do we think enough about peace-building. The pandemic calls for cooperative cosmopolitanism and creative community transformation. Public health is not war. It is peace-work.

War rhetoric has led us astray before. The “war on drugs” created a punitive system of mass incarceration, while thousands continue to die. Drug overdoses killed 67,367 people in 2018. The war on drugs failed because it should not have been a war.

Instead of combat, we needed compassion. People turn to drugs because of pain, depression, or a lack meaning and purpose. The solution to the drug pandemic is a peaceful campaign of caring for those who suffer.

A similar rhetorical shift is needed for the coronavirus. Let’s support the care-givers by giving them the equipment they need. Let’s build inclusive infrastructure to support social-distancing in a time of economic turmoil. Let’s provide compassionate care for those who suffer and grieve. And let’s encourage the wartime president to stay out of the way of cosmopolitan science and the peaceful work of public health.

April 5, 2020April 10, 2020

Virtue and Moral Leadership in Interesting Times

Fresno Bee, April 5, 2020

An old curse says, “May you live in interesting times.” These are those times. Let’s hope we develop the wisdom to survive the curse of chaos.

This curse is subtle and understated. It has been attributed to an anonymous Chinese sage. But it likely came from Britain, the land of understatement and the stiff upper lip. Picture Monty Python’s Black Knight, with his arm cut off, saying, “Tis but a scratch, a mere flesh wound.”

The White House warned this past week that between 100,000 and 240,000 Americans will die. Without social distancing and other measures, there could be between 1.5 million and 2.2 million deaths.

Those who think we can simply get back to normal are not paying attention. California school kids will not be able to return to their campuses this school year. Rep. Devin Nunes said the decision to “cancel” school is “overkill.” But closing schools seems a reasonable way to prevent a million deaths.

At any rate, school is not canceled. It is moving online. So these will certainly be interesting times for teachers, parents and students. Let’s help them rise to the occasion. Instead of denial and unrealistic calls for a quick return to normal, kids need computers. Educators need training. And parents need a new model for helping their kids succeed.

Above all, we all need imagination, dedication and courage. Interesting times help us discover what we are made of. We don’t know where our strength lies until it is challenged. Leadership does not emerge until it is tested.

We need our leaders to unify behind a straightforward call for the better angels of our nature. The rhetoric of the American tradition can help. Thomas Paine said, “these are the times that try men’s souls.”

Paine wrote those words in December 1776, as Washington’s army was facing a difficult winter. Paine said that the time of summer soldiers and sunshine patriots was over. He wrote, “Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it.”

We need statesmen to issue a similar call for hope and virtue today. This springtime may be among the worst in American history. More Americans will die from this disease than died during the Vietnam and Korean wars. The economy has tanked. None of us have ever experienced anything this “interesting” before. We need inspiration.

We also need something to do. Most of us have nothing to do besides grouse and complain. We sit on the sidelines, while the nurses and doctors risk their own health to save the afflicted. Let’s cheer them on and give them the supplies they need. But let’s stop the partisan bickering.

Our passivity creates a paradox. For most of us, the best thing we can do to make the world a better place is simply stay home. This is among the most difficult aspects of our predicament. Virtue seems to require bold action. But in this case, it calls for inaction.

The world’s traditions have often warned against passivity. They say that idle hands are the devil’s playthings. Laziness and sloth are vices. And virtue evokes images of a life of brave effort. Today, inaction is a virtue and activity is a vice.

Can we develop a kind of virtuous passivity? We might cure partisan rancor if we would learn the virtues of silence and patient hope. This is a difficult lesson for Americans. But it is deep in the heart of the world’s wisdom traditions.

During these interesting times let’s rediscover the virtues of quiet and simplicity. This is an opportunity to cultivate calmness and explore solitude. Let’s look within instead of judging others. And let’s encourage our leaders to do the same.

Note to readers: A California law that went into effect Jan. 1 limits freelancers like myself to 35 articles per year. I will be going to a less regular cycle, writing for The Bee only every other week. I will post more regularly on my blog (www.andrewfiala.com). You can also follow me on Twitter (@PhilosophyFiala).

March 20, 2020March 30, 2020

Compassion, Simplicity, and Patience during Quarantine

Fresno Bee, March 20, 2020

In times of crisis it is natural to reassess and reprioritize. Once the initial panic subsides, let’s use our time sheltering in place as an opportunity to seek wisdom.

First and foremost, let’s learn compassion. The sick and suffering need our support, as do the isolated and afraid. This is always true. While COVID-19 clogs the headlines, cancer and other diseases have not gone away. Loneliness, depression, and other maladies may be exacerbated by C-19 restrictions. Compassion brings us together in our distress. It takes us beyond narrow self-interest. It helps us grow as we give it away.

Let’s also learn simplicity. We must find joy in living a bit closer to the ground. This is an involuntary sabbath, a sabbatical from consumer culture. A sabbatical is a time of renewal and regeneration. Let’s use this is an opportunity to learn to live a life that is simple, plain and true. Life is good, even without the chaos of consumer society.

Finally, we must learn patience. We are all anxious to get back to our lives. But anxiety undermines well-being. Let’s urge on the scientists and doctors. But a vaccine will take some time. We have to wait for the disease to run its course. While we wait, let’s cultivate the virtue of patience. We’ve lived for too long in a world of instant downloads and fast food. Patience is the ability to defer gratification and endure hardship. This is a life skill. It is closely connected to courage, perseverance, and even to love.

Compassion, simplicity, and patience were celebrated as the “three treasures” of Taoism. This ancient Chinese philosophy is useful in times of crisis. The wisdom of Taoism teaches us to be yielding, flexible, and resilient. One translation of the three jewels calls them mercy, moderation, and humility. Another translation speaks of love, unpretentiousness, and modesty.

Whatever we call them, these three virtues are essential in a time of crisis. And even in ordinary times, it is wise to be merciful, mellow, and moderate.

Without compassion, we end up isolated and alone. In a crisis, there is a tendency to think that it is “every man for himself.” But this only makes things worse by increasing loneliness, conflict, and fear. Compassion is the root of human connection. Others need our support just as we need theirs. We are all in this together.

If we do not value simplicity, we will bristle at the restrictions imposed upon us in this crisis. Anger and resentment are not helpful. Even in times of crisis, plain and primary goods can be found. Without simplicity, we fail to find contentment in what we have. Right now we can enjoy humor and friendship, natural beauty and art, music and knowledge.

Finally, patience allows us to endure hardship without losing hope. Without patience, we act rashly and without foresight. In a crisis, quick decisions are important. But quick action must not lose sight of the long run. Panicked reactions make things worse. Fortitude, persistence, and hope makes things better.

These three treasures are always valuable. But they are easily forgotten in the frantic pace of what we call ordinary life. Our culture encourages individualism at the expense of solidarity. It glorifies consumption and wealth. It teaches us to be intolerant and unkind.

Let’s learn from the present crisis to live better when things get back to normal. Or better yet, let’s imagine a new normal. For a while now, it has seemed that our way of life has been unbalanced. For too long, we have lived at a furious pace. The planet is groaning under the weight of human consumption. Our social lives have become fragmented. Our political life is polarized. The truth has been lost under blizzards of bull. Our physical and mental health suffers from a life out of balance.

This mandatory pause in ordinary life—our viral sabbatical—is an opportunity to re-balance things and build better habits. Let’s learn to enjoy simple goods and reduce over-consumption. Let’s work to develop patience and forbearance. Let’s learn to care better for the sick and the suffering. And let’s view this crisis as an opportunity to unearth the treasures of wisdom.

February 9, 2020April 10, 2020

Quarantine Ethics

Fresno Bee, February 9, 2020

Coronavirus quarantines are spreading. Fifty million people have been quarantined in China. Hong Kong has quarantined people from the Chinese mainland. A cruise ship remains quarantined in Japan. The U.S. banned entry for people traveling from China while slapping a 14-day quarantine on Americans returning from China.

The Chinese government has warned of fear-mongering. But a pandemic is a scary thing. Contagion conjures images of the Black Death and the zombie apocalypse. But quarantines are also frightening. Imagine desperate people pounding on the gates that lock them in with the disease.

Quarantines may not seem controversial, when viewed from the standpoint of public health. The goal is to prevent infected people from spreading the disease. To defend the majority, some people’s liberty is limited.

China, a country of 1.4 billion people, may not be overly concerned about violating the rights of 50 million. But it would be difficult to imagine this happening in the U.S. If the disease spreads here, would we be willing to restrict the liberty of 50 million Americans?

One concern is people in the quarantine zone who are not yet infected. A quarantine that puts healthy people at risk seems to violate the basic principle of medical ethics that demands that we “do no harm.”

Some may simply bite the utilitarian bullet and say that in the name of the greater good, some healthy people’s rights may be violated. But the healthy person may disagree. Would a healthy person in quarantine be wrong to try to escape? And if they got infected, would they have a right to sue for damages?

Quarantines are not as easy to justify as we might think. Bioethicist George Annas has argued that quarantine is an “arbitrarily draconian” measure and a “relic of the past that has outlived its usefulness.”

The practice has medieval roots. Centuries ago, plague prevention required 40 days of isolation. The name “quarantine” comes from the Italian word for forty. But why 40 days? Well, in the Bible, the number is connected to a mystical process of purification. It rained for 40 days and nights during Noah’s flood. Moses wandered for forty years in the desert. And Jesus fasted for 40 days.

We no longer believe in supernatural numerology. The proposed quarantine for coronavirus is based upon a 14-day incubation period. But scientific and political judgment can be influenced by cultural factors.

Consider the exotic source of recent pandemic threats: Ebola comes from Africa; coronavirus from China. Racial and cultural assumptions may make us think in terms of preventing “them” from infecting “us.” Quarantine can reinforce discrimination and prejudice.

A long-run solution to pandemic threats must work in the opposite direction. We ought to improve the sanitary conditions and general health of people in the developing world — and here at home. If people everywhere had access to adequate health care, the risk of contagion would be minimized. Quarantine is a short-term solution to a problem that is ultimately about global justice in health care.

A related consideration is science education. In the background is the anti-vaccination crowd. An outbreak of measles that killed at least 63 people last year in Samoa was blamed on anti-vax messaging. A prominent anti-vaxxer was arrested. In the U.S., the First Amendment would seem to prevent the arrest of those who dispute the science of public health. Nonetheless, science literacy and education about preventive health care are essential.

Finally, it is worth considering whether we have an obligation to give special care to those who are quarantined. It would be wrong to shut the gates and leave people in quarantine to suffer. In fact, since we are violating their liberty and putting them at risk for our benefit, we may even owe them special compensation.

Critical thinking about all of this is made more difficult by panicked responses. Unfortunately, these are reactionary times. Fear of contagion is exacerbated by zombie movies and rising animosity toward immigrants. Feverish overreaction must be moderated by common sense and careful consideration of medical ethics.

A quarantine is a morally problematic emergency last resort. We should work harder to prevent those emergencies in the first place. We ought to care for the sick. And we must address the long-term challenges of global public health.