Rhetoric surrounding the current COVID-19 pandemic has set a new bar for irresponsible fearmongering, and the resulting mass hysteria is evidence of a receptive audience.
The incomprehensible spectacle of lone drivers wearing face masks is now common on urban streets. Even in a group setting, face masks are not recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), and a recent study suggests that wearing non-surgical face masks can actually increase the likelihood of infection. An unprecedented lock-down paralyzes the world, in response to a virus with lower mortality impact than the annual Influenza season (WHO).
It is difficult to reconcile the high level of COVID-19 hysteria with the actual risk involved.
What has led us down this wormhole of blind panic?
In “Risk Aversion - The Rise of an Ideology”, Dr. Mark Neal of the University of London describes the emergence of the new “non-risk society”, based upon a prevailing Western culture of risk-aversion, “…a combination of cultural, economic, and political developments that has resulted in a widespread obsession with, and intolerance of, any risks, great or small.” Neal goes on to write “The culture of risk-aversion is now so strong and so pervasive in western societies that heavy-handed and irrational responses to risk do not concern or surprise us. Risk-aversion has become both the norm and the key fin-de-siècle cultural value.”
Heavy-handed and irrational responses. Although published in 2000, Neal might have been discussing the current pandemic.
Risk-aversion seems to have reached a paralyzing level.
How exactly did World Health Organization (WHO) Director General Tedros Adhanom's statement of February 28th, “Most people will have mild disease and get better without needing any special care”, translate into global panic?
While mainstream journalism is not totally blameless, social media have played a leading role in fostering hysteria. The term “pandemic” is purpose-made for the uninformed emotive opinion forums such as Facebook and Twitter. Although defined by WHO simply as “…the world-wide spread of a new disease”, and implying no context of severity, it evokes an immediate emotional response of fear. Dark images of carts piled high with Black Death bodies in the streets of plague-ridden 14th century Europe cloud our prehistoric software with irrational fear. Since people also tend to infer that a familiar opinion is a prevalent one, even when its familiarity derives solely from the repeated expression of one group member, as per “A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus (Kimberlee Weaver)”, social media effectively spread a message that plays well into the new-millennium culture of risk-aversion.
The culture has flourished in the age of post-truth. Conflicting messages, “fake news”, “alternate facts”, the emergence of “truthiness” and a reality-show President in the Oval Office have all contributed to a climate of uncertainty. Uncertainty leads to fear. Fear bypasses the neocortex and awakens our primal reptilian brain in a Pliocene fight or flight response. Conscious thought is suspended in one sabre-tooth moment, as we haul it for the safety of the nearest cave.
The age of post-truth has only been possible however, with the generally acknowledged decline of critical thinking. Intuitive feeling has replaced analytical reasoning. Proof of this rests comfortably on the laurels of Trumpian “Bleach Theory”.
According to the 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer, “Globally, nearly seven in 10 respondents among the general population worry about fake news or false information being used as a weapon, and 59 percent say that it is getting harder to tell if a piece of news was produced by a respected media organization.” A 2017 PEW Research Centre Report found that sixty-seven percent of Americans get some portion of their news from social media, despite having low confidence in the credibility of the information, “A majority (57%) say they expect the news they see on social media to be largely inaccurate.” Logic has been left in the dust of technological convenience.
Submit any fool notion to the test of critical thinking however, and the truth usually outs.
Risk-aversion and risk-assessment are not the same thing.
The first human to eat a lobster, for example, probably had considered the alternative of starvation in the decision matrix.
Neal also points to a self-protective regulatory dynamic biased toward extreme caution, and the influence of special-interest groups in the evolution of the risk-aversion culture, “In recent years, we have also witnessed a huge expansion in the number and influence of anti-risk watchdogs, lobby groups, and activists. The exposure, discussion, and elimination of real or potential risks has become a primary political concern. Any risk of disease or death, no matter how small, is newsworthy and the need to eliminate even minor risks goes unquestioned, contributing to a widespread fatalism in the face of ever-tightening health and safety regulations.”
The long path of human achievement has been paved with risk. Sailing to the New World, the Wright Brother's flight, erecting a skyscraper, venturing out of the cave…all entailed considerable risk.
If crisis is the proximity of danger and opportunity, COVID-19 may offer the opportunity to re-evaluate our thinking on risk-aversion before we regress back to the cave.
Risk is fundamental to advancement.