A month into the shutdown, we are transiting from the medical emergency induced by Covid-19 to the economic one. Talking with Lela (a friend from Kindergarten) about the global and local economic impact as countries slow, I recalled Indian novelist Arundhati Roy’s description of the virus as a portal to a new world. Here are three socio-economic trends that I am monitoring whose outcomes lay on the other side of the portal.
Trend 1: Community versus Tribe
On the personal level, isolation is making people realize the importance of community and the value of being able to depend on neighbors, family and friends. Our local theater is running a Zoom event on Fridays called “Sip and Sing” where a professional singer performs songs and displays the words so everyone can sing along. Over 200 people in Sag Harbor are joining and you can see by video the joy on their faces. At the same time, social distancing is also bringing out inherent biases into the open. We keep six feet distant from each other but the distance seems to grow when walking near Chinese people. Will we pull closer together as communities or become more tribal in our views?
Trend 2: Centralization versus Decentralization
At the national level, economies that have created centralized policies to deal with the public health crisis, e.g. Canada, Denmark, Singapore, New York state, seem to be more successful in containing spread. Denmark is already considering a partial opening of borders. Decentralized policy making, which is occurring across the 50 states in the USA, sends mixed messages to citizens and leads to confusion around personal conduct. In the US, will we see support for nationalized public health policies and stronger stewardship at the Federal level or will we rely on continued leadership at the State level?
Trend 3: Nationalism versus Globalization
At the international level, global sharing of knowledge and supplies, has been a critical factor in helping to tamp down the spread of the virus. Aid is being distributed to poorer countries since fluid borders allow easier transmission through international travel. Yet by shutting airports and airlines, erecting severe requirements for visa application, and preventing export of medical supplies to foreign countries, many countries are pulling away from global cooperation. Potentially leaving the most vulnerable countries to fend for themselves. Will countries continue to cooperate or will we retreat to national borders?
An underlying theme to all three trends is the recognition of self versus other. How vividly do we identify our own needs and prioritize our own existence or do we see and care for the needs of others as well? Moving towards greater self-prioritization, inevitably pushes us as a society towards decentralized, tribal and nationalistic behavior.
As Admiral William H. McRaven describes in his commencement speech, we can better our lives and others through some very simple, personal acts. The outcome of these trends, is ultimately up to us as individuals. Our everyday actions – choosing how we interact, who we vote for, how we buy products, how we donate - determine where society will fall on the three questions above.
Feel free to forward this email to others and they can sign up on the website. You can also unlink by pressing the buttons below. Hope to see you soon.
2 comments:
Hi Waseem, so nice to join your blog. Status from here. Denmark successful in containing the virus, and catching up. The government did very well in the initial stages. However now we are going through a confusing opening up time, the government is a single party government and it seems that they are having problems making decisions fast enough, and moreover involving other parties and perspectives. Once the virus is contained - "control" is established, a hard decision needs to be made about what level of deaths is "permissible" as we move forward to some semblance of normal life so that the economy and people's psychological well-being does not deteriorate so much. I do not see this being acknowledged openly enough. I think it would be good to have on the table, what is the cost of avoiding a COVID 19 death? Not just in numbers, but in terms of other human costs - e.g. the other kinds of deaths that are being hastened (i.e. failure to treat cancer, drug addicts not getting what they need). What is the optimal manageable level of activity and contagion rate, while acknowledging that this will unavoidably lead to deaths? But that no vaccine is on the horizon? Don't see this political discussion taking place, though I must believe it is being had, but behind closed doors and within the one-party government.
So glad that Denmark is well advanced. Our multi-party system is having debates as well, but not sure we're getting a better outcome.There is a lot of mismanagement of message and procedure. The ethical question of value of life is probably better weighed by a panel of ethicists, economists and scientists. I don't think politicians are great at making these decisions. Important to have good leadership during these times. So glad you're following.
Post a Comment