Covid-19 – Renaissance Guy

Real Men Aren’t Scared of Needles

Since most of my readers access this site from countries where the COVID-19 vaccine is now available, I’m here to remind you to get vaccinated when it’s your turn. If you’re over twelve in the United States, you are eligible now. While there are many things in life that can be safely postponed or procrastinated, this isn’t one of them. Getting as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible is humanity’s last best chance to quash this virus before it becomes endemic, which would make it impossible to go back to normal.

You’ve probably already heard this argument from better qualified sources than me. And let’s be real, if you haven’t listened to epidemiological statistics or long term morbidity case studies coming from the CDC, you have no reason to listen to them coming from me. So instead, I’m going to present an argument that you probably won’t see on a prime time TV spot any time soon.

You should get the vaccine because getting the virus will ruin your sex life.
I mean, you should also get it because the virus might kill you, or kill other people, or leave you unable to climb stairs, and so on. But if those stories haven’t convinced you already, clearly you have a different set of priorities. So if you need a better reason than your own survival: you should get vaccinated because more and more COVID-19 survivors are developing sexual dysfunction, in particular male erectile dysfunction. Not just from running out of breath or getting tired, either, but from the virus itself being present long after acute infection phase. Tissue samples confirm the presence of COVID-19 spike proteins obstructing normal arousal mechanisms.

Don’t take my word for it. The pilot study is open access, and not that long to read by the standards of journal articles. Yes, there is some medical jargon, and there’s the usual amount of carefully worded and qualified statements saying that more study is needed, but the data speaks for itself. It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A novel virus is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, certainly without any choice. Luckily our scientists are able to interpret the resulting loss of essence correctly.

There are obviously public health implications in these findings that viral particles are lingering in certain tissues and obstructing function after the acute infectious period. But the American public has demonstrated in its actions that it doesn’t really follow the nuance of public health, or scientific studies, or systemic issues in general. The only people who care about things like disability adjusted life expectancy or long term national stability are over-educated bleeding-heart know-it-alls. On the other hand, protecting one’s manhood from the virus’s attempt to sap and impurity our precious bodily fluids is as American as apple pie.

On Social Distancing Vis a Vis Communism

I wish to try and address some of the concerns raised by protests against measures taken to protect public health in the wake of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Cards on the table: I think people who are going out to protest these measures are, at best, foolhardy and shortsighted. It’s hard for me to muster sympathy for their cause. Still, calling someone names doesn’t often win hearts and minds. So I’m going to try and do that thing that people tell me I’m good at; I’m going to write about the situation from where I stand, and try to understand where these people are coming from, in the hopes that I can, if not change behaviors, at least help people understand who may be equally mystified and apoplectic at my position as I am at theirs.

I’m not going to address any conspiracy theories, including the conspiracy theory that these measures are part of some ill-defined plan of a shadowy elite to seize control. Mostly because, from where I stand, it’s a moot point. Even taking all of the claims about evil motivations at face value, even if we assume that everyone in government secretly wants to live in a totalitarian dictatorship and they see this as their chance, that doesn’t really affect the reality. The contents of my governor’s soul is between him and God [1]. He says he wants to save lives, and he’s put in place policies to mitigate the spread of disease. People are dying from COVID-19; maybe slightly more or fewer people than the numbers being reported, but definitely people [2], including people I know.

For context, since the beginning of this episode, I have had friends and acquaintances die, and other friends and acquaintances friends go from being student athletes, to being so sick that they can’t sit up to type on a laptop. My university campus- the places where I learn, interact with others, and often write these posts -is split between being field hospitals, quarantine lodgings for hospital workers, and morgues. Because there aren’t enough staff, undergraduate students, even freshmen like me, who have any experience in nursing or medicine, are called on to volunteer as emergency workers, and facing the same conditions, often without proper equipment, that have claimed so many lives. Every night, from my own bedroom, I hear the sirens of ambulances rushing back and forth from the retirement village to the hospital. We’re not even the epicenter, and things are that bad here.

So the virus is very real. The toll is very real. The danger is real. We can quibble over who bears responsibility for what later. There will be plenty of time for anger, grief, and blame; plenty of time to soberly assess who overreacted, who under-reacted, who did a good job, and who ought to be voted out. I’m counting on it. In the now, we know that the virus spreads by close and indoor contact [2][3]. We know that there are only so many hospital beds, and we have no way to protect people or cure them [4][5]. It stands to reason that if we want to save lives, we need to be keeping people apart. And if we believe that a function of government is looking out for and protecting lives, which even most libertarians I know agree on, then it stands to reason that it’s the government’s job to take action to save as many lives as possible. Yes, this will require new and different exercise of powers which might in another context be called government overreach. But we live in new and different times.

Not everyone is able to comfortably come to terms with change. I get it. And if I’m really honest, I’m not happy with it either. A lot of people who argue for shutdowns try to spin it as a positive thing, like a children’s television episode trying to convince kids that, hey, cleaning up your room is actually fun, and vegetables are delicious. Look at the clear skies, and the dolphins in the Hudson River. Staying at home makes you a hero; don’t you want to feel like a hero? And yeah, there are silver linings, and reasons why you can look on the bright side. For some people looking for that bright side is a coping mechanism. But truth be told, mostly it sucks. Not being able to hug your friends, or eat out at a restaurant, or just hang out in public, sucks. You’re not going to get around that. And a lot of people are angry. People feel deprived and cheated.
And you know what? That’s fine. You’re allowed to feel angry, and cheated. Being upset doesn’t make you a bad person. Your experiences and feelings are valid, and you’re allowed to pout and stomp and scream and shout.

That’s fine. Let it out, if you think it’ll make you feel better. You’re right, it’s not fair. Life isn’t fair, good people are suffering, and that’s infuriating. Unfortunately (and I do mean this sincerely), it won’t change anything. The virus has made it abundantly clear that it doesn’t care about our feelings, only our behavior. However we feel, if we want to save people, we need to stay apart. If we support the idea that governments should look out for people, we should insist that they lend their power to these measures. We can still hate being cooped up. But we need to understand that this is the lesser of the evils. Whether it takes a week, a month, or even a year, the alternative of massive death needs to be ruled out.

Some people have raised the argument that, even though we care about human lives, Americans need to work. The implication that Americans need to work, as opposed to, say, just kinda wanting to work, implies a kind of right. Maybe not as absolute as free speech, or as technical as the right to a trial by a jury of peers, but maybe something akin to a right to privacy; a vague but agreed upon notion that we have a general right to strive for something. Of course, no right is truly absolute. Even free speech, the one that we put first in our bill of rights, and generally treat as being the most inviolable, has its limits. As a society we recognize that times of war, rebellion, or public danger, our rights are not absolute. The police don’t have to mirandize you to ask where the bomb is, or stop chasing an armed suspect because they ran into a private home [6].

Hopefully, even if we may, as a matter of politics, quibble on where the exact lines are, we can all concede that rights are not absolute, and having exceptions for a larger purpose is not advocating tyranny. This same line of reasoning would apply to any previously undefined right to work as well. And I think it’s pretty clear the basis for why the current pandemic constitutes such an exception. We can have respectful disagreements about what measures are useful in what areas, but when the overarching point is that we need to minimize human contact for public safety, it seems like that covers most things in dispute. Again, you don’t have to like it. You’re welcome to write a response. But do so from your own home. If you’re feel compelled to protest something specific, then protest safely, but don’t sabotage the efforts of people trying to make this go away.

Maybe you’re thinking: Okay, that sounds nice, but I actually need to work. As in, the bills don’t stop coming, and this stimulus check isn’t going to cut it for longer. Life doesn’t stop for illness. Even in localities that have frozen certain bills and have good food banks, there are still expenses. In many places, not enough has been done to allow people who want to do the right thing to be able to do so. Not everyone can work from home, and in a tragic irony, people who live paycheck to paycheck are less likely to be able to work from home, if their jobs even exist in a telecommuting economy. For what it’s worth, I’m with the people who say this is an unfair burden. Unfortunately, as we know, life isn’t fair, and there’s not a way to reconcile saving lives and letting everyone work freely. As an aside, though I don’t think anyone genuinely believes in sacrificing lives for GDP, I’ll point out that more people getting sick and dying actually costs jobs in the long run [7][8]. Economists agree that the best way to get everyone back to work is to devote as much of our resources as possible to fighting this virus.

People say we can’t let the cure be worse than the disease, and although I disagree with the agenda for which this is a talking point, I actually agree with the idiom. Making this a choice between working class families starving, and dying of disease is a no-win scenario, and we do need to weigh the effects of cutting people off. That doesn’t make the virus the lesser of the evils, by any stretch of the imagination. Remember, we haven’t actually ruled out the “Millions of American Deaths” scenario if we go back to regular contact patterns, we’ve just put it off for now. That’s what flattening the curve means; it’s an ongoing process, not a one and done effort [9]. Saving lives is a present tense endeavor, and will be for some time. Still, a cost-benefit analysis requires that we understand the costs. People are losing jobs, and suffering for it, and government policy should take that into account.

Here’s where I diverge from others: keeping things shut down does not necessarily have to mean that people go hungry. Rather than ease lockdown restrictions, this is where I would say governments, both state and federal, need to be doing more while they’re telling people to stay home. It’s not fair to mandate people stay at home while their livelihoods depend on getting out and working; agreed, but there’s more than one way to neutralize that statement. The government could scale up the stimulus checks, giving every American an emergency basic income. Congress could suspend the debt limit and authorize special bonds akin to war bonds to give unemployment and the Payroll Protection Program as much funding as they need, removing the bottleneck for businesses. Or, you could attack the problem from the opposite end; mandate a halt on payments for things like rent, mortgages, utilities, and so on, and activate emergency nutrition programs drawn up by the pentagon to keep Americans fed during a nuclear winter. Common carriers such as utilities, telecoms, delivery companies, and other essential services could be placed under temporary government control through existing emergency powers if necessary.

Such a mass mobilization wouldn’t be unprecedented in American history. The world wars the the New Deal show that it can be done while maintaining democratic governance. The measures wouldn’t need to be permanent, just for the duration of the crisis created by the pandemic. There’s a good historical case that a strong response would benefit our economic recovery once this passes [8]. You wouldn’t necessarily need to do all of the things I mentioned; you could tailor it to fit demands in specific areas. The point is, people don’t need to starve. The trade off only exists in the system we’ve constructed for ourselves. That system is malleable, even if we don’t often view it as such, because we so rarely get to a point like this. The lockdown is easier to see as malleable, because it’s recent, and we can remember a time before it, but there’s a much stronger scientific basis for why we need to keep it in place, at least for now.

I’ll address one more point, and that is the argument that, material need or no, people have a deeper need, and by implication a right, to get out and try to make a living in the world. This is subtly different than the idea that people have a default legal right to do as they will, as covered earlier. By contrast this strikes at a deeper, philosophical argument that people have a need to contribute positively. The idea that people simply go stir crazy, and television and video games lack that certain element of, as Aristotle put it, Eudaimonia, the joy achieved by striving for a life well lived [10]. I think this is what people are getting at, at least, the people who have really sat down and thought about it, when they decry increasing government dependence while life is under quarantine. They probably understand that people need to eat, and don’t want anyone to die, but deeper than any legal right, are concerned that if this state of affairs drags out, that people will stop striving, and lose that spark that drives the human spirit. People need to be able to make their own lives, to give them meaning.

Expressed in philosophical terms, I’m more sympathetic to this argument than my politics might suggest. I agree that people need meaning in their lives. I even agree that handouts don’t provide that meaning the same way that a successful career does. It is human nature is to yearn to contribute, not just survive, and for a lot of people, how they earn money outside the home is what they see as their contribution; the value they add and the proof of their worth. Losing that is more than just tragic, it’s existentially terrifying. I remember the upheaval I went through when it became clear I wasn’t going to be able to graduate on time with my disability, and probably wouldn’t get into the college on which I had pinned my hopes and dreams as a result. I had put a lot of my value on my being a perfect student, and having that taken away from me was traumatic in its way. I questioned what my value was if society didn’t acknowledge me for being smart; how could I be a worthwhile person if society rejected the things I put my work into. Through that prism, I can almost understand how some people might be more terrified of the consequences of a shutdown than of the virus.

The idea that work gives human life meaning isn’t new. Since the industrial revolution created the modern concept of the career, people have been talking about how it relates to our philosophical worth. But let’s tug on that threat a little longer. Before any conservative pundits were using the human value of work to attack government handouts, there was a German philosopher writing about the consequences of a society which ignored the dislocation and alienation which occurred when the ruling class prevented people from meaningful work. He used a German term, Entfremdung der Gattungswesen, to describe the deprivation of the human soul which occurs when artificial systems interfere in human drives. He argued that such measures were oppressive, and based on his understanding of history would eventually end in revolution.

That philosopher was Karl Marx. He suggested that industrial capitalism, by separating the worker from the means of producing their livelihood, the product of their labor, the profits thereof, and the agency to work on their own terms, the bourgeoisie deny the proletariat something essential to human existence [11]. So I guess that protester with the sign that “social distancing = communism” might be less off the wall that we all thought. Not that social distancing is really communist in the philosophical sense, rather the contrary; social distancing underlines Marxist critiques of capitalism. True to Marxist theory, the protester has achieved consciousness of the class iniquities perpetuated by the binding of exploitative wage labor to the necessities of life, and is rallying against the dislocation artificially created by capitalism. I suspect they probably wouldn’t describe themselves as communist, but their actions fit the profile.

Here’s the point where I diverge from orthodox Marxism. Because, again, I think there’s more than one way to neutralize this issue. I think that work for meaning doesn’t necessarily need to be work for wages. Suppose you decoupled the drive of material needs from the drives for self improvement and worth, either by something like a universal basic income, or the nationalization and dramatic expansion of food banks, rent controls, and utility discount programs, such that a person was able to survive without working. Not comfortably, mind you, but such that starving is off the table. According to Marx this is most assuredly not communism; it doesn’t involve the worker ownership of the means of production. People still go to work and sell their labor, and market mechanisms dictate prices and reward arbitrage.

What this does, instead, is address the critique of our current system raised by both Marx, and our protester. In addition to ensuring that no one goes hungry, it also gives the opportunity, indeed, an incentive, for individuals to find socially useful and philosophically meaningful work beyond the market. Feeling useless sitting at home? Go get on video chat and tutor some kids in something you’re good at. Go mow lawns for emergency workers in your area. Take an online class, now that lots of them are free. Make some art; join the trend of celebrities posting videos of themselves singing online. If you have any doubts that there is plenty of unpaid but necessary and useful work around the house, ask a housewife. Rather than protest the lack of a particular task, we should take this opportunity to discover what useful and meaningful work we can accomplish from home.

The dichotomy between opening and starving is a false fabrication, as is the dichotomy between deference to scientific and philosophical principles. Those who protest one or the other appear either to represent a fringe extreme, or misunderstand the subtleties of the problem and the multitude of measures which we may take to address it. Our individual freedoms reflect a collective responsibility and commitment to self moderation and governance, which we must now demonstrate, by showing the imagination, foresight, and willingness to sacrifice for a greater cause which has defined our human struggle. In this moment, the responsibilities to our fellow human beings outweigh some of the rights we have come to take for granted. This exigency demands a departure from our norms. We must be prepared to suspend our assumptions, and focus on what really matters. Now is the time to find meaning in things that matter to us. To demand better from our government than platitudes and guidelines. To help ourselves and our fellow human being without prejudice.

Works Consulted

[1] Matthew 7:1, KJV

[2] “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020, www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html.

[3] “Coronavirus.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019.

[4] “ Over the past several weeks, a mind-boggling array of possible therapies have been considered. None have yet been proven to be effective in rigorously controlled trials”“Pursuing Safe and Effective Anti-Viral Drugs for COVID-19.” National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 17 Apr. 2020, directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/04/17/pursuing-safe-effective-anti-viral-drugs-for-covid-19/.

[5] “ There are no drugs or other therapeutics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to prevent or treat COVID-19. Current clinical management includes infection prevention and control measures and supportive care”“Therapeutic Options for COVID-19 Patients.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 Mar. 2020, www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/therapeutic-options.html.

[6] Burney, Nathan. “The Illustrated Guide to Law.” The Illustrated Guide to Law, 17 Apr. 2020, lawcomic.net/.

[7] Pueyo, Tomas. “Coronavirus: Out of Many, One.” Medium, Medium, 20 Apr. 2020, medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-out-of-many-one-36b886af37e9.

[8] Carlsson-Szlezak, Philipp, et al. “What Coronavirus Could Mean for the Global Economy.” Harvard Business Review, 16 Apr. 2020, hbr.org/2020/03/what-coronavirus-could-mean-for-the-global-economy.

[9] Ferguson, Neil M, et al. “ Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand.” Imperial College of London, 16 Mar. 2020, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf

[10] Aristotle. “Nicomachean Ethics.” The Internet Classics Archive, classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html.

[11] Marx, Karl. “The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.” Marxists Internet Archive, www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm.

World Health Day

The following message is part of a campaign to raise public awareness and resources in light of the global threat posed by COVID-19 on World Health Day. If you have the resources, please consider contributing in any of the ways listed at the end of this post. Remember to adhere to current local health guidelines wherever you are, which may differ from those referenced in this post.

Now that the world has woken up to the danger that we face in the Covid-19 pandemic, and world leaders have begun to grapple with the problem in policy terms, many individuals have justifiably wondered how long this crisis will last. The answer is, we don’t know. I’m going to repeat this several times, because it’s important to come to terms with this. For all meaningful purposes, we are living through an event that has never happened before. Yes, there have been pandemics this bad in the long ago, and yes, there have been various outbreaks in recent memory, but there has not been a pandemic which is as deadly, and as contagious, which we have failed to contain so spectacularly, recently enough to use it is a clear point of reference. This means that every prediction is not just speculation, but speculation born of an imperfect mosaic.

Nevertheless, it seems clear that unless we are willing to accept tens of millions of deaths in every country, humanity will need to settle in for a long war. With the language of the US President and Queen Elizabeth, the metaphor is apt. Whether “long” may mean a few months, or into next year will depend on several factors, among them whether a culture which has for many decades been inculcated with the notion of personal whimsy and convenience is able to adapt to collective sacrifice. The longer we take to accept the gravity of the threat, the weaker our response will be, and the longer it will take us to recover. Right now all of humanity face a collective choice. Either we will stubbornly ignore reality, and pay the price with human tragedy of hitherto-fore unimaginable proportions, and repercussions for decades to come, or we will listen to experts and hunker down, give support to those who need it, and help each other through the storm.

For those who look upon empty streets and bare shelves and proclaim the apocalypse, I have this to say: it is only the apocalypse if we make it such. Granted, it is conceivable that if we lose sight of our goals and our capabilities, either by blind panic or stubborn ignorance, we may find the structures of our society overwhelmed, and the world we know may collapse. This is indeed a possibility, but a possibility which it is entirely within our collective capacity to avoid. The data clearly shows that by taking care of ourselves at home, and avoiding contact with other people or surfaces, we can slow the spread of the virus. With the full mobilization of communities, we can starve the infection of new victims entirely. But even a partial slowing of cases buys us time. With that most valuable of currencies, we can expand hospital capacity, retool our production, and focus our tremendous scientific effort towards forging new weapons in this fight.

Under wartime pressure, the global scientific community is making terrific strides. Every day, we are learning more about our enemy, and discovering new ways to give ourselves the advantage. Drugs which prove useful are being deployed as fast as they can be produced. With proper coordination from world leaders, production of these drugs can be expanded to give every person the best fighting chance should they become sick. The great challenges now are staying the course, winning the battle for production, and developing humanity’s super weapon.

Staying the course is fairly simple. For the average individual not working essential jobs, it means staying home, avoiding contact as much as possible, and taking care to stay healthy. For communities and organizations, it means encouraging people to stay at home by making this as easy as possible. Those working essential jobs should be given whatever resources they need to carry on safely. Those staying at home need to have the means to do so, both logistically and psychologically. Logistically, many governments are already instituting emergency financial aid to ensure the many people out of work are able to afford staying home, and many communities have used volunteers or emergency workers such as national guard troops to support deliveries of essentials, in order to keep as many people as possible at home. Psychologically, many groups are offering online activities, and many public figures have taken to providing various forms of entertainment and diversion.

Winning the battle for production is harder, but still within reach. Hospitals are very resource intensive at the best of times. Safety in a healthcare setting means the use of large amounts of single-use disposable materials, in terms of drugs and delivery mechanisms, but also personal protective equipment such as masks, gowns, and gloves. If COVID-19 is a war, ventilators are akin to tanks, but PPE are akin to ammunition. Just as it is counterproductive and harmful to ration how many bullets or grenades a soldier may need to use to win a battle, so too is it counterproductive and harmful to insist that our frontline healthcare workers make do with a limited amount of PPE.

The size and scope of the present crisis, taken with the amount of time we have to act, demands a global industrial mobilization unprecedented during peacetime, and unseen in living memory. It demands either that individuals exhibit self discipline and a regard for the common good, or central authorities control the distribution of scarce necessities. It demands that we examine new ways of meeting production needs while minimizing the number of people who must be kept out at essential jobs. For the individual, this mobilization may require further sacrifice; during the mobilization of WWII, certain commodities such as automobiles, toys, and textiles were unavailable or out of reach. This is the price we paid to beat back the enemy at the gates, and today we find ourselves in a similar boat. All of these measures are more effective if taken calmly in advance by central government, but if they are not they will undoubtedly be taken desperately by local authorities.

Lastly, there is the challenge of developing a tool which will put an end to the threat of millions of deaths. In terms of research, there are several avenues which may yield fruit. Many hopes are pinned on a vaccine, which would grant immunity to uninfected, and allow us to contain the spread without mass quarantine. Other researchers are looking for a drug, perhaps an antiviral or immunomodulator which might make COVID-19 treatable at home with a pill, much like Tamiflu blunted the worst of H1N1. Still others are searching for antibodies which could be synthesized en masse, to be infused to the blood of vulnerable patients. Each of these leads requires a different approach. However, they all face the common challenge of not only proving safety and effectiveness against COVID-19, but giving us an understandable mechanism of action.

Identifying the “how and why” is not merely of great academic interest, but a pressing medical concern. Coronaviruses are notoriously unstable and prone to mutation; indeed there are those who speculate that COVID-19 may be more than one strain. Finding a treatment or vaccine without understanding our enemy exposes us to the risk of other strains emerging, undoing our hard work and invalidating our collective sacrifices. Cracking the COVID-19 code is a task of great complexity, requiring a combination of human insight and brilliance, bold experimentation, luck, and enormous computational resources. And like the allied efforts against the German enigma, today’s computer scientists have given us a groundwork to build off.

Unraveling the secrets of COVID-19 requires modeling how viral proteins fold and interact with other molecules and proteins. Although protein folding follows fairly simple rules, the computational power required to actually simulate them is enormous. For this, scientists have developed the Folding@Home distributed computing project. Rather than constructing a new supercomputer which would exceed all past attempts, this project aims to harness the power of unused personal computers in a decentralized network. Since the beginning of March, Folding@Home has focused its priorities on COVID-19 related modeling, and has been inundated with people donating computing power, to the point that they had to get help from other web services companies because simulations being completed faster than their web servers could assign them.

At the beginning of March, the computing power of the entire project clocked in at around 700 petaflops, FLOPS being a unit of computing power, meaning Floating Point Operations Per Second. During the Apollo moonshot, a NASA supercomputer would average somewhere around 100,000 FLOPS. Two weeks ago, they announced a new record in the history of computing: more than an exaflop of constant distributed computing power, or 10^18 FLOPS. With the help of Oracle and Microsoft, by the end of March, Folding@Home exceeded 1.5 Exaflops. These historic and unprecedented feats are a testament to the ability of humanity to respond to a challenge. Every day this capacity is maintained or exceeded brings us closer to breaking the viral code and ending the scourge.

Humanity’s great strength has always lay in our ability to learn, and to take collective action based on reason. Beating back COVID-19 will entail a global effort, in which every person has an important role to play. Not all of us can work in a hospital or a ventilator factory, but there’s still a way each of us can help. If you can afford to donate money, the World Health Organization’s Solidarity Fund is coordinating humanity’s response to the pandemic. Folding@Home is using the power of your personal computers to crack the COVID-19 code. And if nothing else, every person who stays healthy by staying home, washing hands, wearing homemade masks and keeping social distance is one less person to treat in the ICU.

What is a Coronavirus, anyway?

I had about come to the conclusion not to write anything on the current crisis. This was because I am not an expert. There are plenty of experts, and you should listen to them over me, and I didn’t want to detract from what they’re saying by adding my own take and spin. I also didn’t want to write something because, in five attempts so far, every time I’ve sat down to write something out, double checking my sources and cross referencing my information, the situation has changed so as to render what I was about to say outdated and irrelevant, which is incredibly frustrating. The last thing I want to do is give advice contrary to what’s being said.

But it looks like we might be heading towards a situation where the advice is stabilizing, if only because when the advice is “shut down everything”, you can’t really escalate that. And the data suggests that we are moving towards a long war here. It’s hard to say, but I’ve seen reports with numbers ranging from a few weeks, to eighteen months. And whether we manage to skate by lightly after a few weeks at home, or whether the first two years of the 2020s go down in history akin to the time of the Bubonic Plague, we need to start understanding the problems with which we find ourselves dealing in a long term context. Before I delve into what’s going on, and what seems likely to happen, I’m going to spend a post reviewing terminology.

I wasn’t going to die on this hill, but since we’ve got time, I’ll mention it anyway. Despite begrudgingly ceding to the convention myself, I don’t like calling this “Coronavirus”. That’s not accurate; Coronavirus is not the name of a virus. The term refers to a family of viruses, so named for protein chains which resemble the outermost layer of the surface of the sun. You know, the spiky, wavy bit that you would add to the picture after coloring in the circle. There are a lot of viruses that fit this description, to the point that the emoji for virus (ie: 🦠 ) could be said to be a generic Coronavirus. In addition to a number of severe respiratory illnesses, such as SARS, and now COVID-19, Coronaviruses also cause the common cold.

They’re so common, we usually don’t bother naming them unless there’s something unusual about them. The World Health Organization was a bit slow to come out with its name for this one; and in the interim the media ran with the word they had. Despite my instinct, I’m not going to tell you you need to get up and change everything you’re saying and remove posts where you said Coronavirus, just be aware of the distinction. We’ve gotten to a point in social discourse where the distinction is academic, the same way everyone understands that “rodent problem” refers to rats or mice rather than beavers. But do be aware that if you’re reading scientific journals, if it doesn’t specify, it’s as likely that that they’re referring to the common cold as COVID-19.

The term COVID-19 is designated by the World Health Organization, short for COronaVIrus Disease, 2019. WHO guidelines are explicitly crafted to design names which are short, pronounceable, and sufficiently generic so as to not “incite undue fear”. These guidelines specifically prohibit using occupational or geographic names, for both ethical and practical reasons. Ethically, calling a disease specific to an area or people-group, even when it doesn’t imply blame, can still create stigma. Suppose a highly infectious epidemic was called “Teacher’s Disease”, for instance. Suppose for the sake of this that teachers are as likely to be carriers as everyone else, but the first confirmed case was a teacher, so everyone just rolls with that.

Even if everyone who uses and hears this term holds teachers completely blameless (not that they will; human psychology being what it is, but let’s suppose), people are still going to change their behaviors around teachers. If you heard on the news that Teacher’s Disease was spreading and killing people around the world, would you feel comfortable sending your kids to school? What about inviting your teacher friend over while your grandmother is staying with you? Would you feel completely comfortable sitting with them on the bus? Maybe you would, because you’re an uber-mind capable of avoiding all biases, but do you think everyone else will feel the same way? Will teachers be treated fairly in this timeline, by other people and society? And perhaps more crucially, do you think teachers are likely to single themselves out for treatment knowing that they’ll have this label applied to them?

There are other practical reasons why using geographic or occupational names are counterproductive. Even if you have no concern for stigma against people, these kinds of biases impact behavior in other ways. For instance, if something is called Teacher’s Disease, I might imagine that I, as a student, am immune. I might ignore my risk factors, and go out and catch the virus, or worse still, I might ignore symptoms and spread the virus to other people. I mean, really, you expect me, a healthy young person, to cancel my spring break beach bash because of something from somewhere else, which the news says only kills old timers?

You don’t have to take my word for it either, or even the word of The World Health Organization. You can see this play out through history. Take the Flu Pandemic of 1918. Today, we know that the virus responsible was H1N1, and based on after the fact epidemiology, appeared first in large numbers in North America. Except, it wasn’t reported due to wartime censorship. Instead, it wouldn’t hit the press until it spread to Europe, to neutral Spain, where it was called Spanish Flu. And when the press called it that, the takeaway for most major governments was that this was a Spanish problem, and they had bigger issues than some foreign virus. The resulting pandemic was the worst in human history.

I am not going to tell you what words you can or can’t use. Ours is a free society, and I have no special expertise that makes me uniquely qualified to lecture others. But I can say, from experience, that words have power. The language you use has an impact, and not always the impact you might intend. At times like this we all need to be mindful of the impact each of us has on each other.

Do your part to help combat stigma and misinformation, which hurt our efforts to fight disease. For more information on COVID-19, visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webpage. To view the specific guidelines on disease naming, go to the World Health Organization.