On the one hand, those declaring “give me freedom or give me death” may be opening the door for deadly misinformation. They actually may be choosing their own death (from the infection). At the very least, they may be endangering the lives of other people and adding greater stress to the health care system by sharing or accepting misinformation. They are declaring their own freedom—but are constraining the freedom of other people in our society. On the other hand, we are remaking a fragile democratic society if we block out all discourse about the validity of specific pandemic policies. The compelling tendency to fight against, flee from or freeze in the face of misinformation and inconsiderate (non-NPI) social behavior may lead us to a society without the fourth “F” – which is freedom. Fight, flight and freeze not only make forums difficult to convene. they also lead us to the creation of a society without freedom. This is a society in which very few of us wish to live.
The polarity has been fully and passionately engaged with the presence of these three variants on the third choice. Fight, flight and freeze may win the day—and help viruses eventually win the war. In the future, how do we make the management of the polarity between compassion and consideration into a constructive act that yields a viable social policy regarding a pandemic virus? We need an open forum for system-based, slow thinking dialogue—a forum leading potentially away from fight, flight and freeze to the identification of a fourth choice.
The Fourth Choice: Integrating Consideration and Compassion
There is a fourth choice. We become realistic about the spread of future viruses and the interplay between induced immunity (via vaccines) and natural immunization (a variant on herd immunity). This considered acceptance of reality is coupled with the compassionate enforcement of strong social behavioral practices (NPI) and with the development and efficient (and equitable) distribution of effective vaccines. This choice requires that we are quite thoughtful in formulating policy. Can we construct a set of contingency plans that account for (but don’t rely on) the potential of curative or preventative breakthroughs in response to the variants in pandemic viruses we are likely to encounter? Slow and systemic thinking must be in place for this fourth option to be engaged successfully. This will not be an easy journey. It requires that we become rational and caring citizens despite the fact that we will be quite anxious and prone to disillusionment and the uncritical acceptance of misinformation. We must become fully acquainted with the habits of our Lion (virus) rather than engaging in fight, flight or freeze. After all, we are among the smartest (considerate) and most caring (compassionate) animals on the Savannah. This is our adaptive advantage—let’s make use of this advantage.
