COVID-19: The downside of social distancing
Listen to this article
When faced with danger, humans draw closer together. Social distancing thwarts this impulse. A group of researchers argue that this dilemma poses a greater threat to society than overtly antisocial behavior.
They argue that the corona crisis presents countries around the globe with what is perhaps the greatest challenge most have faced since the Second World War. For one thing, the virus constitutes a truly global threat. In the absence of a vaccine, our primary defense against it consists in what is now termed ‘social distancing’—minimizing our contacts with others in public spaces. In an essay that appears in the journal Current Biology, this interdisciplinary team underline the dilemma posed by measures designed to promote social distancing.
What the researchers say: “Hazardous conditions make us less social” said the lead author. “Coping with this contradiction is the biggest challenge we now face.”
Seen from this point of view, our current problem lies not in egoistic reactions to the crisis or a refusal to recognize the risks, as images of banks of empty shelves in supermarkets or throngs of strollers in our public parks would have us believe. The researchers argue that such scenes are not representative. They emphasize that people instinctively tend to huddle together when faced with an acute danger—in other words, they actively seek closer social contacts. Studies in the fields of neuroscience, psychology and evolutionary biology have already shown that we are not as egoist as some disciplines think. Researchers in these fields continue to produce evidence which demonstrates that threatening situations make us even more cooperative and more likely to be socially supportive than we usually are.
In fact, the reason that humans form societies in the first place is to defend each other from threats.
“When people are afraid, they seek safety in numbers. But in the present situation, this impulse increases the risk of infection for all of us. This is the basic evolutionary conundrum that we describe,” said the lead author. The demands now being made by governments to self-isolate and follow social distancing guidelines are fundamentally at odd with our social instincts, and therefore represent a serious challenge for most people.
“After all,” he said, “social contacts are not an ‘extra’, which we are at liberty to refuse. They are part of what we call normal.” The essay’s authors therefore contend that, because social distancing stands in opposition to our natural reaction to impending hazards,our social inclinations—rather than antisocial reactions to rationally recognized threats—now risk exacerbating the danger.
How then might we escape from this dilemma? According to the researchers, we need to revise what the Internet can offer. The argument goes as follows: In the pre-pandemic world, the Internet and social media were often looked upon as being decidedly unsocial. But in times like the present, they provide an acceptable and effective alternative to physical contact. They enable social interactions in the absence of physical contiguity. Social media makes it possible for large numbers of people to reach out virtually to neighbors, relatives, friends and other contacts. “Our innate inclinations are cooperative rather than egoistic. But access to the Internet makes it possible for us to cope with the need for social distancing,” they said.
“How well, and for how long, our need for social contact can be satisfied by social media remains to be seen,” the lead author warned. But she and her co-authors do have two important recommendations for policy-makers. First, they must acknowledge that the demand for social distancing is not only politically highly unusual: It runs counter to the evolved structure of human cognition. Second, nowadays, free access to the Internet is not only a prerequisite for freedom of speech. In the present situation, it is also making a positive contribution to public health. “This is an important message, given that the most vulnerable sections of society are often those who, owing to poverty, age and illness, have few social contacts.”
So, what? I have written before on the dangers posed by social distancing and orders requiring that people stay at home. We are seeing the results of these orders in increasing loneliness, depression, anxiety and domestic abuse.
However, it must be noted that all of these were becoming rampant well before the advent of the novel coronavirus onslaught. The stress level of the workplace and in society in general was increasing. Work stress alone was going up by some 70% every four years. This was unsustainable.
The virus is undoubtedly going to make this much worse and I have a gnawing fear that our whole social contract may end up in tatters.
More from this issue of TR
To combat COVID-19, behavioral pitfalls must be addressed
During any crisis, timely, and sometimes life-altering, decisions must be made, requiring an extreme amount of sound judgment under uncertainty.
COVID-19 could spell the end of an egalitarian UK NHS
Does COVID-19 signal the end of the National Health Service based on the liberal egalitarian conception of distributive justice?
You might be interested in
Flirting among coworkers can reduce stress
"Some flirting is happening, and it seems pretty benign," said the first author on the paper. "Even when our study participants disliked the behavior, it still didn't reach the threshold of sexual harassment. It didn't produce higher levels of stress, so it is a very different conceptual space."
Join our tribe
Subscribe to Dr. Bob Murray’s Today’s Research, a free weekly roundup of the latest research in a wide range of scientific disciplines. Explore leadership, strategy, culture, business and social trends, and executive health.