All this can weigh on mental health. I have long argued that mental health is public health, and we should address mental health with the same level of care we apply to the health of our bodies. This is no less true during the challenge of COVID-19. As our community adjusts to the measures we have collectively adopted to mitigate the spread of the disease, it is important to prioritize mental health, even as we take steps to minimize the infectious threat.

In the near-term, maintaining economic stability is critically important, as we work to limit the spread of disease. Social distancing is key to slowing COVID-19, but many low-wage, hourly workers do not have the economic flexibility to work from home, even when their health is at stake. $1,000 would provide near-term support to allow some of these workers to feel more comfortable about engaging in social distancing, in these early months of the outbreak.

As of this writing, there have been 127,863 confirmed cases and 4,718 deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide.

In the U.S., there have been over 1,200 cases and 38 deaths. In three short months, a novel coronavirus has captured global consciousness and changed day-to-day life in large parts of the world, in the process becoming a public health emergency that is testing, like perhaps no event before it, our global capacity to respond to large-scale infectious threats.

As public health agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)work around the clock to coordinate a local, national, and global response to the rapidly changing situation, we are, collectively, learning how to better grapple with this epidemic.

While there will be much to learn when (we hope) this epidemic is over, I think there are some key lessons that emerge clearly that are worth highlighting even now, when the epidemic is at the very forefront, dominating all our conversations, sharpening our thinking.

The ongoing Covid-19 outbreak is in many ways unprecedented, in both the scale of this challenge, the scale of public health response, and the historical context in which all this is unfolding. Covid-19 is the first global pandemic of the social media age, the first of the “alternative facts” era, and is occurring at a moment when politics and society seem to be in a state of accelerated flux.

Yet for all that is new about Covid-19, the disease still behaves like any number of prior epidemics. It is, for example, similar to the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak, an event which created a number of lessons for our present moment. SARS was, in many ways, the best-case scenario for responding to a global infectious threat. The spread of SARS was contained fairly quickly by public health efforts, chiefly through the widespread use of quarantine. But even this relative success still had consequences for health. In 2004, I worked with colleagues on a study of SARS control and the psychological effects of quarantine in Toronto, Canada. We found among quarantined persons a high prevalence of psychological distress, including symptoms of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A key takeaway: Even if we can halt the physical spread of a disease through the expeditious use of quarantine and social distancing, we will still have to contend with its mental health effects in the long-term.

In recent months, the novel coronavirus COVID-19 has emerged as a health challenge of international concern. As of this writing, there have been over 111, 350 confirmed cases of the disease, including over 3,890 deaths. In the US, there have been over 500 cases and 22 deaths.

Much is still unknown about COVID-19. It is clearly unnerving to have a novel coronavirus causing disease and death worldwide, and the scale of the outbreak in some places has been truly frightening. Yet, as new cases are reported, it is worth noting that there is reasonable epidemiologic doubt as to whether COVID-19 is as dangerous as some public comments have suggested. As with any public health challenge, it is important to keep COVID-19 in perspective, our response measured, guided by cutting-edge data and our best science. Having said this, any number of deaths is, of course, concerning, and it is undeniable that we are living in a moment of real anxiety.

Central to our collective task at this moment is to support the work of those who are charged with protecting the public’s health. It is with that in mind that we would do well to recognize and assist the federal and local health officials in charge of outbreak control, and ensure the conditions are in place to generate the science that can inform these efforts.

Last month, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus, recently named COVID-19, a public health emergency of international concern. In the U.S., the Secretary for Health and Human Services declared it a public health emergency for the country.

Since it was first detected in Wuhan City, Hubei, China, COVID-19 has been found in about 40 countries. Over 80,000 cases have been identified globally, including nearly 3,000 deaths, a death toll higher than that of the 2003 SARS epidemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) just announced the US can expect to see new cases within its borders.

Inevitably, there is much fear about COVID-19. This has been reflected in the global economy, as markets react to the disease. Last Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average declined over 1,000 points, then slipped more than 800 points the next day. The London-based bank HSBC Holding PLC has lowered expectations for growth in its Asia markets, and Apple has announced the virus will stop the company from reaching its first quarter revenue targets.

Anxieties about COVID-19 have led to many responses, from the precautionary—such as the widespread purchasing of respiratory masks—to the cruelly counterproductive; namely, a willingness to scapegoat people of Chinese descent.

Such scapegoating is, sadly, an old story. When unexpected, large-scale health challenges strike, especially infectious health challenges, the climate of fear and uncertainty can lead to a belief that some people are especially at fault for creating or spreading the disease. This stigmatization can produce new outbreaks—outbreaks of racism, xenophobia, hate.

Since it was initially detected in Wuhan City, Hubei, China, a novel coronavirus, recently named Covid-19, has become a global public health challenge. Over 80,000 cases have been identified around the world, including about 3,000 deaths.

Most of us have in our minds a model of how to respond to large-scale health threats like Covid-19. We think of science. We think of quarantines and sanitary masks, and the race to develop a vaccine. These are important steps in addressing Covid-19, as are standard flu-season best practices of handwashing, covering one’s mouth when one sneezes or coughs, and contacting a health care professional in the event of sickness.

But there is another element to addressing Covid-19, one we perhaps do not think much about: love. To be clear: I do not mean love in a sentimental sense. I am not suggesting we can simply love each other and the disease will go away. Covid-19 is a serious, sometimes deadly disease, and will not be wished away by warm feelings. I mean love as an organizing principle for our collective response to disease and for building a healthier world, one where threats like Covid-19 no longer occur.

Let me explain.