The fundamental recommendation to be made in managing this particular polarity is to remain in the positive domain of each policy option long enough to identify all (or at least most) of the key benefits and potential actions to be taken that maximize these benefits. Time should also be devoted to and attention directed (in a slow and systemic manner) toward identification of potential ways in which the two policies can be brought together on behalf of an integrated response to the pandemic challenge. Consideration and compassion potentially join hands.
This polarity management recommendation is not easily enacted—especially when the stakes are high (as they certainly were in 2020 regarding COVID-19 and will be with any future pandemic crises). As Johnson and others engaged in polarity management have noted, effective management of polarities requires a constant process of vigilance, negotiation, and adjustments. The second option regarding future pandemic invasions that is offered by public health policy experts seems to be aligned with this recommendation of dynamic vigilance. In agreement with the polarity management experts, those advocating the second option suggest that we must continuously seek and refine a dynamic, flexible balance between consideration and compassion. Each side’s beneficial contributions can be enjoyed without engendering serious negative consequences. We must accompany this balance with some immediate, tangible correctives, such as wide-spread distribution of better-designed masks, increased testing and improved tracing.
Policy Alarm Systems
Johnson has one more important point to make regarding the management of polarities. He identifies the value inherent in setting up an alarm system as a safeguard against overshooting either side of the polarity. It would be prudent to build in an alarm system that warns us when we may be trying to maximize one side and are on the verge of triggering the negative reactions.
The alarm signal for the NPI policy might a growing debate regarding failure of this policy and the continual refinement of this policy by leaders in politics and business. We would observe a struggling system: abundant vacillation, frequent reversal of existing policy, and very short-term implementation, criticism, and abandonment of revised social distancing policies and stay-at-home orders. The signal might also be apparent at a deeper, psychological level. There would be a growing sense of helplessness and hopelessness.
