Urgency and Australia in the Time of COVID19

This piece was originally published on Medium on March 28, 2020.

I have some friends who live overseas. Thanks to self-isolation, I’ve been able to connect with them more lately — checking in on each other as this weird new science-fiction-movie world continues to unfold.

Among them, a French best friend currently under an estimated 45-day Parisian lockdown; another in India, one of the 1.3 billion people confined to their home; Barcelona where my friend went downstairs to the street for a cigarette and saw only a police officer; and New York where my friend goes for a run and sees the famous concrete jungle… free of people. Each one of these friends has asked me, at one stage or another:

What in the world is Australia doing?

I have said before that I don’t envy the government’s situation right now. They are playing a very risky chess game, constantly weighing up factors and trying to preserve both lives and livelihoods. I can appreciate that they are taking action, albeit slowly. No matter what they do or don’t do, they will receive criticism. There are economic arguments for trying to keep businesses alive, and I am aware that a sudden spike in unemployment also opens Pandora’s jar to a potential increase in suicides, mental health issues, and poverty. I am aware that closing schools and confining people to homes may exacerbate problems, like those for children who rely on school as a safe space; may escalate existing domestic violence situations; may have a number of tremendously horrible impacts on people’s lives.

And yet, I am also aware of the warnings from other countries around the globe, countries pages ahead of us who have been flung into the climax of this tragic story arc already. I’m aware of the modelling that says if we don’t take drastic action at the fastest speed possible, we too will follow the trajectory that sees an overrun hospital system, shortage of resources, and wartime-like decisions for doctors who suddenly have to choose who will receive the last ventilator… and who won’t. Deaths that could have been prevented, at a scale based entirely on the actions we are taking right now, and those we have taken in the weeks just passed.

I have written already of the difficulty of short-term sacrifice to avoid a long-term, invisible threat, and I know it can be hard to mobilise people against an enemy that seems far away. But people are relying on our authorities to tell us what we should be doing, and the inconsistency of messaging (e.g. “stay home unless it’s necessary to leave, but retail stores will remain open”, “funeral attendee limits remain under 10 people, but classrooms remain open”, “stay 1.5 metres away from people, but hairdressers are still good to go” and so on) derails the sense of urgency all Australians should be feeling.

I am grateful to those who are staying home and acting as though we are in a complete lockdown even though we aren’t yet. But for those who are not, who still see COVID19 as an overblown, exaggerated threat (or even, as two people have said to me recently, a giant conspiracy constructed by the Illuminati), I can see where that is stemming from. And I think it is yet another challenge for our leaders to create the urgency that is absolutely required right now, and arguably lacking, without creating an excessive panic that is not constructive.

At the time of writing (March 27), it seems we are heading towards a more intensive lockdown in the near future. I can only hope this comes sooner rather than later. Indeed, it should have come weeks ago. Every moment that we are not locked down is another moment of tragedy we gift to our healthcare system in the future.

Today, in the Prime Minister’s afternoon address, he referred to twin crises: An economic crisis and a health crisis. My concern is that by trying to prevent both we will end up succumbing to both. By trying to sort of keep some brick and mortar businesses kind of open, we are exposing more people to potential infection. Piecemeal attempts to attack both sides of this can’t form a whole solution, because, for example, trying to keep retail workers in jobs necessitates that people keep coming into shopping centres to buy clothes, which necessarily contributes to the health crisis.

And if there is a choice between lives and livelihoods, the answer should be crystal clear. The economy will always recover eventually.

I think our government is getting better — with each press conference I feel a little more relief. I’m sure there other considerations that I haven’t thought of, that our National Cabinet and pollies have to think about. I am no expert in any of this, after all. But we are still obviously paling in comparison to countries like New Zealand, who have clearly and with certainty engaged in a full lockdown. I, and I’m sure many others, are still incredibly worried and convinced that we should have done more, and must do more now to give our nation the best chance to get through this alive.

When the 2020 world pandemic is written about in history books of the future, will we be content with what is typed under “The Australian Response”? I don’t know. At the moment, I err towards “probably not”.

Another issue with a piecemeal approach is that it requires rapid changes. Every day, businesses have to watch the news and see if they’ll continue trading or not. People need to cross-check and see if things haven’t changed since they last saw an update. There is a lack of certainty and a confusion in society that is compounded by the fact that we’re in such an uncertain situation to begin with.

Instead of the simplicity that comes with “everything is closed except this, this and this,” people have to scour through long lists to figure out if they fall into one of the new categories of business that are closing. The occasional handballing between federal and state governments also comes across to me as weirdly politicky, with the issue of schools being a prime example.

There has been a lot of talk of “proportionate” measures. The word “proportionate” here makes no sense. “Proportionate” measures are, by definition, suitable degrees of measures in relation to the stimulus. When the stimulus is a threat that has shown itself to emerge in society in an abrupt and deadly way, putting tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of lives at risk in society, how can a proportionate measure be anything but the most extreme one? When the threat itself is slowly transmitting through society right now, just because we can’t see the consequences of that yet, a “proportionate” response recognises that the threat is already here. The only proportionate response we should accept is one that wholly protects the health of our population in every way possible.

In a dream, we would have closed all non-essential businesses already. Grocery stores would operate by delivery only, if possible. People would be staying at home. Not only those who are individually concerned about their health and the health of their loved ones and their civic duty, but even those who feel no urgency about it. Even those who think the coronavirus doesn’t exist and maybe I’ll just pop down with my mates to hang at the beach anyway. They’d be at home, because there is a clear, certain message that this is what we are all doing to save our nation right now.

School classrooms would be closed. Specifically exempt students with frontline working parents e.g. who work in a hospital would have somewhere to go (I believe other places have used public libraries and such for this purpose?), whether that’s a classroom or somewhere else, where they could have supervision.

We would use technology in as many ways as we possibly could, to teach our kids, to allow businesses to keep running where there was no face to face contact, to keep life going in a super weird way. And there would be a shitload more testing (I believe the Gov is working on this). But again, this is all my very-much-non-expert, probably flawed opinion, so take those suggestions as you like.

To echo some of the great Aussie politicians and journos on Twitter recently: If we have further measures to take, we must take them now.

Action is the most important thing. Speed is the most important thing. A sense of urgency is imperative.

The only way we can stand together right now, is by standing apart.

I am optimistic that Aussies are feeling more urgency. I am hopeful that we have made some behaviour changes, and will make more behaviour changes, that will help us minimise the tragedy in the future. I am also worried that the well-meaning slow-to-move measures in Australia have left many still thinking this virus is nothing to worry about. Only today there was another headline stating that bunches of people were at Manly beach.

I think it is human nature to grasp at your freedoms when you feel them slowly slipping away. That’s why I think there are so many people who are going out and doing whatever is still allowed, while they are still allowed to. When you realise you aren’t allowed to go out for coffee with friends anymore, you might feel a sudden desire to do so — even if you didn’t much before.

This is another concerning risk to the gradual restriction approach: That people will continue to flout advice because they’ve suddenly realised just how wonderful we had it before disease threatened our society as we know it. That the urgency will be directed towards the momentary loss of freedoms. Based on Australia’s short experience with this so far this is exactly what seems to happen in some areas— we are worried we will be locked down, so we go to the places we fear we won’t get to go to again in a while. How else could Bondi Beach have had numbers close to the New Years Day figures last week?

Of course, we all look to others as reference for how we should behave. It connects to social proof and social identity theory and we see it in many incidents that have played out so far, from mass toilet paper buying to more people out and about at the beach or the cafes before they closed. A lack of urgency is also contagious. But a group of people saying it should be okay and they’re not worried, does not make it right. The virus doesn’t operate democratically, it doesn’t discriminate, and it will move through our communities whether we are prepared for it or not.

We cannot call a ‘truce’ with it because it’s a nice day and we want to go to the beach, or because we know we shouldn’t be going out but it’s my niece’s first birthday this is only going to happen once. We cannot reason with it. In this way, it is far deadlier than war. We cannot collectively decide, as the UK appeared to at one point, that things will be okay if we let the virus run its course.

If we let the virus run its course, the virus will win.

As an aside, some people I know who are on the conspiracy-theory bandwagon about COVID19 have brought up the point that a number of celebrities and public figures seem to be getting the virus. This is evidence, they suggest, of something sinister going on. I’m still not quite sure to what they refer.

But the fact that we are seeing lots of celebrities in the media being diagnosed with COVID19 is an interesting one from a sociological perspective. I was speaking with my brother about this recently (the one who should be prime minister) and he pointed out that many in positions of power are probably not following the rules as they expect broader society to. That they think they’re protected, and social distancing is for everyone else. Is this a reflection of power dynamics in society more broadly? That some people feel more immune to threats more generally? I think so. But all the money, status and fame in the world won’t stop you from contracting an infectious disease.

Other potential considerations include that of course, when a celebrity gets COVID19, it will be in the media. An average person is less likely to get a whole segment on the news about it. Also, the accessibility of testing potentially plays a role.

The most urgency-defying element of this virus is how long it takes to show symptoms. Someone said to me the other day, “how many people do you know with coronavirus?” which is probably an exemplar for the non-urgent folks in society. The ones who are taking the approach that “seeing is believing”, and until it is right in front of their face, they refuse to acknowledge it. They may see acknowledgement before this as giving their power away. But the only way we can keep our power here is to take control of everything we are doing in society.

I am not talking, of course, about everyone. There is still a large percentage of people who are taking this very seriously, giving it the urgency it needs. There are celebrities sending great messages to their followers about staying home and isolating, using their influence to help. There are people staying home. I don’t know what percentage of people in Australia are urgent vs. non-urgent. But I do know that from our news headlines, people on social media, and people I’ve spoken to, that many are still way too relaxed. The government is at least partly to blame for that.

I think there is a bit of scaremongering involved in the government’s frame of locking down. They have said a number of times, “if we lock down, we have to be prepared to do that for 6 months”, and although this may end up being true, and no one really knows what will happen in the short or long term, by all accounts it is my understanding that the length of a lockdown is only likely to increase the longer we put it off. The impact of action now vs. action later is exponentially different. The degree and speed of action has a significant impact on the outcomes.

A united front is the best way. If the government gave us a clear, finite lockdown, social proof would move away from people doing what they’re allowed to and move towards isolation. We would be giving this threat the urgency it needs. People generally would probably be less panicky. There would be more certainty to it. And of course, although it is later than ideal timing, it would hopefully have a positive effect on the curve. As our community transmission continues to increase, we must increase our urgency.

We can still be positive, resilient, and strong of mind while being urgent. These are not mutually exclusive. I hope that the government follows New Zealand’s lead with their measures. And in the meantime, I hope that people utilise their social media, as some already are, to create the urgency and social proof for others of the right thing to do right now. Let’s continue to stand together by standing apart. We will get through this.

— — — —

Thank you for reading. Please note this was written on March 27 (with the pace of everything at the moment, posting a day after writing seems like it’s already out of date haha). Although this piece is another kind of bleak one, a more positive one is coming. The next piece I’m working on is about gratitude, emotion and silver linings. I wish you love and health in these uncertain times.