The world is watching anxiously to see what happens with the
coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China. As scientists and public health
officials in the United States learn more about the virus, and as we all see
how bad the outbreak turns out to be, it is important that public policymaking
remain firmly centered around science.
Unfortunately, our history of reactions to infectious
disease outbreaks suggests that if this outbreak becomes severe, we’re likely
to see strong pressure to the contrary. In particular, we can expect three
things:
We can expect some to
panic.
Unfortunately, there tends to be disproportionate hysteria
and exaggerated fear around infectious diseases — especially when they are new.
In 2009, the appearance of the H1N1 (aka “swine flu”) virus prompted some to
call for measures like closing the
U.S.-Mexico border, an enormously disruptive measure that, among other things, would
have led to billions of dollars in lost economic activity. The H1N1 turned
out to be a normal strain of the seasonal flu virus. In late 2014, many panicked
over the Ebola outbreak ravaging West Africa, including a number of U.S.
governors who imposed politically-motivated quarantines on health care workers
and others returning from West Africa. Those quarantines were completely
unjustified by science. (In 2015 the ACLU, the Yale School of Public Health,
and Yale Law School released a major
report analyzing the response to Ebola.)
Every disease is different and merits different public
health responses. A person infected with Ebola, for example, is not contagious
until after fever and other symptoms begin. That appears not to be the case
with the coronavirus, and scientists’ recommendations will no doubt differ as a
result. But no matter how bad any disease outbreak may get, responding in ways
that are not supported by science is never the right thing to do.
We can expect
pressure for counterproductive responses.
Most panicky
responses to disease outbreaks, according to epidemiologists and other experts,
only make things worse. In particular, law enforcement-type approaches to
stopping the spread of communicable disease such as quarantine and forced treatment
are, as three preeminent public
health experts put it, “generally acknowledged by experts to be either
completely ineffective or only potentially marginally effective” in slowing the
spread of disease.
Public panic will predictably spark calls for “tough,” even draconian
measures that treat the problem like a law enforcement or national security issue
rather than a public health matter. We at the ACLU have always
acknowledged
that civil liberties must sometimes give way when it comes to fighting a
communicable disease — but only in ways that are scientifically justified. And the
public health community has learned over time that treating sick people like
potential enemies only spurs them to “go underground” and avoid the
authorities, which exacerbates the spread of disease. The evidence
is clear that travel bans and quarantines are not the solution. Also
counterproductive are the targeting and stigmatization of vulnerable
populations, another historically frequent response to frightening epidemics.
We can expect that Trump
will lead the panic, not calm it.
In previous disease scares, Donald Trump has been among the
most panicky and scientifically ungrounded public voices in the United States. During
the West African Ebola outbreak in 2014-15, he opposed
allowing American doctors infected with the disease to be airlifted back to the
United States for lifesaving treatment (tweeting,
“KEEP THEM OUT OF HERE”). He also called for blocking
all air traffic from West Africa.
As one expert advised in 2015, “Officials
should avoid unrealistic reassurances or taking unnecessarily stringent measures
so as to appear decisive.” Even in the earliest stages of the present outbreak,
President Trump managed to violate the first half of that guidance, rashly and
unrealistically telling
the nation of the Wuhan virus, “We have it totally under control.” If things
get worse, history suggests he’ll violate the second half as well and react
with theatrical, counterproductive “toughness.”
The job of our political leaders is to solicit and follow
the guidance of public health experts in crafting a calm and rational response
to an outbreak, to help the public understand the scientific facts of this
disease, and to present an honest and mature appraisal of risk and the limits
of human power to curb nature. Unfortunately, Trump and his administration have
a terrible
record when it comes to listening to scientists.
We don’t know how bad this outbreak will be. If this one is
not severe, another one probably will be in the future. And the more dangerous
an actual outbreak, the more important it is that our authorities respond with
cool heads and based on science, and not intrude any more than strictly
necessary on people’s civil liberties.