“It is worth noting that, while the science is fairly clear that an abrupt end to physical distancing would interfere with slowing this disease, the debate we are seeing has little to do with the science of this pandemic. If it did, it would be a conversation less about whether to end physical distancing and more about how to do it properly. And if the argument for resumed functioning was really all about the economy, advocates for an Easter revival would be less concerned about stock prices and more focused on the low-wage, often marginalized workers that this crisis has revealed to be the backbone of our collective fiscal health.”

Photo by Pixabay from Pexels

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.