This third choice requires that each of us make hard decisions regarding who we think should and who should not receive the caring attention. Important questions arise. What about racial minorities? What about those who are poor or incarcerated? Do we ignore those involved in occupations requiring close contact with other people—such as those in the meat-packing industry or restaurants? And what about the health care workers themselves? Who do we save and who do we lose? Who makes the decisions, or does no one take responsibility for the horrible choices that must be made? We could end up with a Darwinian survival of the fittest scenario.
It becomes even more troubling. While Darwinian survival could be with us for a lengthy period of time, there is a potential reality from which most (if not all) of us will want to escape. It is not at all clear that we would eventually win the battle against the virus. Globalization gives the virus an edge in its capacity to spread quickly (Christakis, 2020, p. 298). While we gain an edge with our advanced medical expertise and knowledge about human behavior (the NPI factor), the virus can counter with many mutations that are frequently manufactured (Christakis, 2020, p. 307). At best, there might be a standoff, with the virus becoming something like a very nasty cold. We would end up in a lingering “cold war” (to offer a horrible pun).
This is a “nice try” but a feeble attempt at Hope. It is likely that the virus will produce much more than sniffles—it will continue to kill many people. Christakis (2020, p. 297-298) forces us to consider the cold reality of potential defeat or at least our engagement in a never-ending war:
. . . it is not clear why human beings should be favored to win against microbes in an evolutionary arms race. Microbes have been around a lot longer than humans, are more numerous, do not mind dying, and can mutate rapidly, evading our defenses. . . . While we can use our wits to win, perhaps against a pathogen causing a particular outbreak, and while we can occasionally eliminate a pathogen . . . it is extremely doubtful we can win against all pathogens. Infectious disease care and control seem more realistic objectives than eradication.
Thus, even with equitable policies in place, we have to prepare ourselves (with this second choice) for the ongoing death of many people—including those we love. A major role might have to be played by religious institutions and other faith-based communities—as we seek to find some purpose or meaning in the afflictions that will become rampant with the next pandemic. We would have to allow our public policies and our careful consideration of the long-term outcomes of a social distancing policy to temper (and sadly often replace) our personal compassion.
