
Ethics in a time of coronavirus
ArticleLifestyle + Health
BY Simon Longstaff 12 MAR 2020
The response to the novel coronavirus COVID-19 (now called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, or SARS-CoV-2) has been fascinating for a number of reasons. However, two matters stand out for me.
The first matter concerns the way that our choice of narrative framework shapes outcomes. From what we know of SARS-CoV-2 it is highly infectious and produces mortality rates in excess of those caused by more familiar forms of coronavirus, such as those that cause the common cold. However, given that ‘novelty’ and ‘danger’ are potent tropes in mainstream media, most coverage has downplayed the fact that human beings have lived with various forms of coronavirus for millennia.
The more familiar we are with a risk, the more likely we are to manage it through a measured response. That is, we avoid the kind of panicky response that leads people to hoard toilet paper, etc. We can see how a narrative of familiarity works, in practice, by comparing the discussion of SARS-CoV-2 with that of the flu.
John Hopkins reports that an estimated 1 billion cases of flu (caused by a different type of virus) lead to between 291,000 and 646,000 fatalities worldwide each year. That is the norm for flu. Yet, our familiarity with this disease means that the world does not shut down each flu season. Rather than panic, we take prudent measures to manage risk.
I do not want to understate the significance of SARS-CoV-2, nor diminish the need for utmost care and diligence in its management. This is especially so given human beings do not possess acquired immunity to this new virus (which is mutating as it spreads). Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 is currently thought to generate mortality rates greater than most strains of the flu.
However, despite this, I wonder if society would have been better served by locating this new virus on the spectrum of diseases affecting humanity – rather than as a uniquely dangerous new threat.
This brings me to the second matter of interest that I think worth mentioning. Like many others, I have been struck by the universal commitment of Australia’s leading politicians to legitimise their decisions by relying on the advice of leading scientists.
I do not know of a single case of a politician refusing to accept the prevailing scientific consensus. As far as I know, there has been nothing said along the lines of, “all scientific truth is provisional” or “some scientists disagree”, etc. I have not heard politicians denying the need to take action because it might put some jobs at risk. Nor has anyone said that action is futile ‘virtue signalling’ because a tiny nation, like Australia, can hardly affect the spread of a global pandemic.
As such, I have been left wondering how to explain our politicians’ commitment to act on the basis of scientific advice when it comes to a global threat such as presented by SARS-CoV-2 – but not when it comes to a threat of equal or greater consequence such as presented by global warming.
Taken together – these two issues raise many important questions. For example: are we only able to mount a collective response under conditions of imminent threat? If so, is this why politicians so often play upon our fears as the means for securing our agreement to their plans? Does this approach only work when the risks can be framed in terms of our individual interests – and perhaps those of our immediate families – rather than the common good? Or, more hopefully, can we embrace positive agendas for change?
For my part, I still believe that people are open to good arguments … that they can handle complex truths – if only they are presented in accessible language by people who deserve to be trusted. It’s the work of ethics to make this possible.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
MOST POPULAR
ArticleLifestyle + Health
Vaccines: compulsory or conditional?
ArticleBeing Human
Free speech has failed us
ArticleLaw + Human Rights
He said, she said: Investigating the Christian Porter Case
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
Ethics Explainer: Ethics, morality & law

BY Simon Longstaff
After studying law in Sydney and teaching in Tasmania, Simon pursued postgraduate studies in philosophy as a Member of Magdalene College, Cambridge. In 1991, Simon commenced his work as the first Executive Director of The Ethics Centre. In 2013, he was made an officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for “distinguished service to the community through the promotion of ethical standards in governance and business, to improving corporate responsibility, and to philosophy.”
8 Comments
It’s OK to make an analogy with flu, but one needs to take it to its logical conclusion. Namely, pretend we were living in a world without flu. Then all of a sudden, flu came and infected one billion people. Then what do you think would happen if there is not enough mitigation? Well, you don’t need to guess. Indeed, this has happened just about a hundred years ago. Namely, the Spanish flu. It killed 1% of the world’s population at the time (in today’s terms 80 million people). Furthermore, it completely devastated the public health infrastructure of most of the world.
The point is that flu is not scary, because we have vaccine, we are used to it, our hospitals have known how to cope with it, doctors are trained a whole life time dealing with it, and so on. COVID-19 has no vaccine, has no treatment, it kills doctors and nurses in droves, and overwhelms public health system within a matter of weeks.
ReplyAustralia’s actions are for Australia’s self-interest – to slow the spread in an attempt to avoid our health system being over-whelmed, and so save lives (both coronavirus & all the other illness that continues).
Whether the economic cost of this is greater than a shorter, more severe season (like Italy) where mostly, predominantly elderly and diseased, people die is open for debate.
Economically the latter might be better in the short and long term, however ethically? There’s a debate.
Simon, well written and a very clever Segway into the ‘climate’ Hysteria.
A better way would be not to tether the two together, but rather leave your your sensible observations about our response to SARS:2 as a mooring line to a more temperate and thoughtful tactical plan for dealing with this issue.
ReplyHi Simon, thanks for your perceptive comments. I agree that the government’s messages about the coronavirus have clearly accepted what scientists are saying (even though in some cases, the responses and prescribed actions have been later than they should have been). I agree that the immediacy of the coronavirus threat compared to climate change would be one factor in the reason for different reactions.
However, I think that the “elephant in the room” reason the government doesn’t accept scientific evidence about climate change is all the dollars donated to political parties by companies with vested interests in fossil fuels, and also all the lobbying by far right media (also funded by these companies or just with perspectives that make them not accept science about this issue). The climate change issue has had decades for lobbyists with interests in fossil fuels to affect government perspectives. The coronavirus episode has happened too quickly, and is too immediate, for any such influences to take hold.
An additional factor is that with the coronavirus it will be fairly clear to pinpoint people who are most at risk of dying (aged, immunosuppressed, etc.) and “save” them by applying science. With climate change, basically everyone or almost everyone will have lives affected (“some time in the future”) and decision-makers won’t be able to “rescue” groups of people. So, the government has less incentive to try to look good by fixing the situation, and more ways it can get influenced by lobbyists along the way.
ReplyHi Simon Maybe humans are simply contrary and learning is a complicated business. I work in aged care and the staff deal with controlling spread of life threatening viruses (to the vulnerable in their care) every year. They do a fantastic job of containing outbreaks of influenza and norovirus on an almost annual basis. Yet they are very anxious. It’s easy to say that the reason is there is no vaccine, yet that is the case with norovirus and without significant effort people quickly become lax about their own influenza vaccinations which does have a mortality rate in the healthy. Perhaps the acuteness and the media will do us a favour as we learn we are all connected as a herd in this rich biological environment and actually our government and dare I say Woolworths and Coles and others are in fact doing a great job right now in helping us overcome our fearfulness and control our base nature. Perhaps we just suffer from complacency. History will be the judge. The trick will be to take the learning into the longer term climate response which might just be the silver lining. Regards Sara
ReplyHi Simon, thoughtful piece. I think when we compare climate change and coronavirus COVID-19 the difference for most people is the immediacy of the threat. About what appears to be a double standard by the government about CC versus Corona: There are plenty of right-wing thinkers and commentators out there that are saying “hoax” or simply “over-reaction” re Corona. RW voters in my own family are saying this to me. Is either level of government taking effective action and providing leadership? I don’t think so. Neither the State or Federal government has taken a stand to cut through the plethora of opinions and misinformation being pedalled on various media platforms including radio and TV, not just social media. A solid consistent saturation add campaign from the Federal Government would help. Also having ONE place to get information or at least collate information. Searching for reliable information on various government web sites today I was stuck by the many hyperlinks go here and go theres with yet another screen to scroll through. It is not a game and should be simple to get accurate and up-to-date information.
ReplyI was wondering if you could address the ethical issues that arises when you find health services so overwhelmed that we have to “ration” care. So people who ordinarily would receive the high intensity care is denied it due to other patients that need attending. In Italy we have heard of people >65 years who are not even offered an ICU bed, because everything is at capacity. How do you navigate this ethical conundrum?
ReplyIn Italy, it is a utilitarian practice: maximizing the number of lives saved. This contrasts with the principle of humanity and universal law of Kant. From Kant’s universal law, this practice cannot be universalized to be followed widely. In the principle of humanity, the utility practice ignore the discussion of human’s dignity. Kant might say that the doctors acted upon duty to save the lives but the government acted upon the duty to provide medical equipment. The duty of doctors has been fulfilled but duties held by the governments are not yet delivered.
Reply
Join the conversation
Is fear the true pandemic?