Everything's Zero-Sum until You Reach Zero

By Baruch M Blum

A lot of people are trying to be rational about the coronavirus. They are making cost-benefit analyses of risk in order to arrive at what they hope are responsible decisions. Some are consulting with others to offer their input. In places where case numbers have lowered and there is some reopening, you can often find people posting on Facebook asking if their friends think some activity they want to do is safe enough yet. We want to be rational and reasonable. These are qualities that are valued by much of society. 

Part of the tragedy of the coronavirus crisis is that it has exploited some of the tendencies associated with rationality and reason. When you act “rationally”, you don’t let yourself be motivated by fear -- and here thousands have died because people weren’t paranoid enough. When you’re “rational”, you usually avoid being extreme -- and it is extreme measures which we need, and which we needed at the outset. When you’re “rational”, you gather information and make a knowledge-based decision -- but in our attempts to look to our limited knowledge about the virus, we have at many points failed to reckon with the enormity of our ignorance. 

But rationalizing is a sticky habit. And in our desires to get back to normal, many of us are falling back on the self-assurance of personal reasoning, despite the tragic failure of much of our reasoning throughout this crisis. One variable which is particularly susceptible to misuse in our determinations is the number of cases in our respective cities or states. In places where the number of cases has fortunately been reduced, there is unfortunately a strong tendency for everyone to relax their precautions, often with the rationale of a cost-benefit risk analysis. A low number of cases fits neatly into an individualized risk analysis telling us that our risk of exposure is low, so that we can change our behavior accordingly. 

But if we consider things on the community level, then the logic starts to break down. We can’t all assume that we’re probably not interacting with someone who has coronavirus, because until the number of cases is zero, some of us are in fact interacting with infected and contagious people. And some of us are infected and contagious without knowing it. 

Many people who insist that their precautions are sufficient would admit that they would behave differently if they knew for certain that they themselves or the people with which they interact were infected with coronavirus. Of course, to an extent, it makes sense that we behave differently in a realm of probability from how we behave in a case of certainty. But we have to acknowledge that these are compromises in a state of emergency, and that as long as we’re operating in this realm of probability with the coronavirus, any compromise is a zero-sum game. 

That means that until you’ve reached zero in a green zone, nothing “becomes safe again” just because the numbers have dropped. The standard still has to be to treat everyone outside your bubble as if they have coronavirus. Any behavior outside of this standard is taking advantage of the limited room for compromise that we have collectively. 

Arguments can be made about what is essential enough to allow for an exception. You can argue that someone suffering from loneliness should allow themselves to socialize in person even if their friends aren’t the best mask wearers. You can argue that someone struggling to feed their family is justified going along with their boss’ insistence that they return to the office instead of working from home, just so that they can keep their job. But we have to realize that we are making exceptions where limited exceptions can be made, and that you shouldn’t change the standards to fit the exceptions. 

Arguing that social distancing should be relaxed because some people are suffering from severe loneliness is like arguing that we should raise the speed limit because ambulances have to drive faster sometimes. The fact is, any general relaxing of standards makes it less safe for individuals to allow themselves certain exceptions in extreme situations. It makes no sense for us to lower our own precautions as if in solidarity with those who are suffering most from precautionary measures. (And as for those of us doing things like getting haircuts and feeling okay about it because we’re supporting our barber, we should realize that we can always send the money as a gift or get a giftcard if that’s available.)

Until you’re in a green zone, you’re in a state of emergency, and everything’s zero-sum until you reach zero. It’s a difficult reality to be in, and we should all be understanding of one another. But we can’t let our own standards or the standards of our community slip, lest we undo whatever containment we’ve achieved.