Researchers and scientists have shown us the many ways human behavior must change in order to eradicate the COVID-19 pandemic. Planning to get vaccinated, wearing masks, and social distancing are the main ways public health professionals have suggested we keep ourselves and those around us safe. The question of overcoming the virus is hardly a scientific one anymore, but a political and ethical one. As Andy Slavitt points out, many newspapers have “switched almost entirely from covering COVID-19 as a scientific matter to covering it as a sociological one,” reflecting the transition in America from fearing for their health to drawing party lines. Unlike past infectious diseases that have arrived in the US, the new and unfamiliar COVID-19 did not give Americans the option of waiting for epidemiologists to fix the problem for them. Instead, they were asked to remain at home, to be cautious of those around them, and to sacrifice the life they knew to protect themselves against this invisible but deadly disease. Without a strong leader to instill hope, this task proved to be difficult for Americans. 

In the past, state governments have always held the power to contain epidemics, including mandating vaccinations and quarantines, but under the current administration, governors have been emboldened not to. About six months ago, for example, “four justices connected to the Republican Party on the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned their state’s common-sense emergency Covid-19 rules over the dissents of three colleagues.” [1] By leaving the virus unrestricted, governments have allowed their constituents to become less cooperative. In the New York Times, John Fabian Witt argues that this is in large part because the judges and congressmen are in support of President Trump’s racist, classist and xenophobic politics: 

“In the past, when epidemics have threatened white Americans and those with political clout, courts found ways to uphold broad state powers. Now a new generation of judges, propelled by partisan energies, look to deprive states of the power to fight for the sick and dying in a pandemic in which the victims are disproportionately Black and brown.” 

America’s biggest obstacle is the polarization and poor leadership that has allowed them to place party allegiance over the lives of constituents. [2] It is evident from the efforts of Taiwan, New Zealand, Finland etc. that it isn’t impossible to contain the virus and different leadership styles have proved to do so. The most successful national responses to COVID–19 across the world have included measures such as early closure of borders, stringent social distancing measures and effective track and trace systems. While it is not within the scope of this article to look into those too deeply, there are commonalities in their success: strong and decisive leadership, early actions based on scientific evidence and recommendations from experts in the field, and a sense of nationalism and collectivism channeled in a healthy manner that has led people to abide by regulations. While the former two can be tackled swiftly with a change of political tides and election cycles, the latter suggestion is certainly a double-edged sword. 

While the U.S. would certainly benefit from a strengthened pandemic response team and structural changes to public health systems, that alone isn’t enough, as American society is immensely stratified, socially and culturally. The politicization of the COVID–19 pandemic shows that individualism, libertarianism and capitalism are deeply ingrained in American culture, to the extent that Americans often blind to the fact community welfare can be equivalent to personal welfare. Pandemics are multifaceted, and preventing them requires not just a cultural shift but an emotional one amongst the American people, one guided by empathy – towards other people, different communities and the planet. Politics should be a tool, not a weapon against its people.

Sources 

1.  John Fabian Witt, “Republican Judges Are Quietly Upending Public Health Laws,” The New York Times (The New York Times, October 15, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/opinion/coronavirus-health-courts.html.

2.  MBA Andy Slavitt, “Science Is Needed to Rescue the Nation From COVID-19, but Not Just Traditional Biomedical Science,” October 8, 2020, https://jamanetwork.com/channels/health-forum/fullarticle/2771804.