Infection, epidemic, quarantine: these are the slogans of the first weeks of 2020. Meanwhile, we discovered the existence of a Chinese city called Wuhan, substantially unknown until now, although its population is greater than that of all of Lombardy, and that of the even more unknown province of which it is the capital, Hubei, is equivalent to the Italian one. As we know, Wuhan is the epicentre of the epidemic that broke out in early January and which, after some weeks, was named COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 2019), caused by the 2019-nCoV (new coronavirus of 2019) virus.
It is not possible to provide detailed information on medical and epidemiological aspects here, considering also the effort we have made to unravel conflicting news – now alarming, now reassuring – in order to retrieve the most reliable ones, disseminated by authorized sources, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) website or the English scientific journal The Lancet, but which are constantly updated. Rather, we want to show how the irruption of something unexpected, not well defined and also threatening, triggers a series of social and political reactions. In the face of danger, the urge to act becomes urgent, although uncertainty makes it difficult to decide what to do: in fact, responses differ greatly, both among people and among countries. Not based on reliable data or pre-established plans, these actions end up bringing to light criteria and dynamics that inhabit our societies at a very deep level, making them more evident and recognizable. Thus, there are many similarities between reactions to the epidemic and those to any phenomenon that is perceived as elusive, uncontrollable and at least potentially threatening: migration, relations with diversity or ethnic and religious minorities, but also climate change or other environmental issues. In this key, we believe that it is worth re-reading these weeks in which we began to assimilate the new coronavirus, recovering some ideas for the search of a mature and responsible way of inhabiting an increasingly interconnected world, leaving behind prejudices and manipulations.
Viruses and contagion are terms that belong to the field of medicine, but we are increasingly used to using them in other areas, from the economy to finance to the world of new media. The new coronavirus confirms these linguistic developments, as it is impacting many areas, showing how deeply interconnected they are despite appearances. Who and what does the infection affect?
Surely the disease is directed at people. Its cause is a new strain of the coronavirus family, capable of infecting not only humans but also many other animals and of changing from one species to another. This strain, probably already in circulation for some time, was isolated in Wuhan in late December 2019. The symptoms of the infection are mainly respiratory symptoms, up to forms of pneumonia and severe respiratory failure that can be fatal. Scientifically validated information is still very incomplete and this only adds to the confusion. Certainly, with the beginning of February the number of victims has exceeded one thousand, while those infected are several tens of thousands, but it is not so easy to find information on the number of people cured. The poor quality and clarity of the data is also due to the problematic counting procedures adopted in China and to the fact that, given the draconian measures taken by the authorities, many Chinese with mild symptoms could remain away from hospitals and therefore go undetected.
After a few days of uncertainty, WHO has identified the new coronavirus as a serious global threat, although the number of reported cases outside China in general, and Hubei Province in particular, remains very low, indicating that containment measures appear to have been effective to date. It is surprising that so far there are no reports of any particular spread of the contagion in Africa, given the intensity of the relations that some countries have with China and the high number of Chinese working there. It is feared that this is due to the lack of adequate diagnostic tools, to remind us that in terms of access to health care the world is characterized by profound inequalities, certainly not without effect.
The infection spread very quickly to the economy, following containment measures taken by China and then by other countries as well. The forced extension of the holiday period linked to the Chinese New Year has a negative impact on industrial production, and even more so on the quarantine to which the whole of Hubei was subjected. Wuhan, in fact, is one of the key regions for Chinese manufacturing, especially in the electronics and automotive components sectors. Shopping centre and plant closures, particularly by foreign operators, also have a depressing effect. Thus, an initial effect of the virus was to produce a downward revision of China’s GDP growth estimates, in a year in which it was already expected to fall. The current and expected decline in Chinese demand immediately led to a fall in oil and other commodity prices.
Given the weight of the Chinese economy in the world economy, its slowdown cannot but be transmitted globally, affecting in particular the countries that export their products there (for Italy, first of all the fashion and luxury sectors). Furthermore, travel restrictions and the slowdown in trade have a depressing effect on the world economy, in addition to the need to block production plants (in China but also abroad) due to the lack of supplies that cannot arrive from Wuhan. The air transport and international tourism sectors will be particularly affected, with significant repercussions also in our country, which has become the preferred destination of Chinese tourists in Europe. For both tourism and fashion, a major burden arises from the impossibility for operators in the sector to arrive in Italy at a time of the year when contracts for the next season are being defined. It is not by chance that the business world has protested strongly against the blockade of flights from China, organised by our country alone unlike its European partners.
Infodemics is the neologism coined by the WHO Situation Report of 2 February 2020 to indicate that we are in a situation of “a wealth of information, some accurate and some not, making it difficult for people to find reliable sources when they need them”. Real news is accompanied by a large mass of false news, which spreads exactly like a virus. Those who “infect” themselves with it and re-release it through the endless channels available, in turn “infect” those who receive it and believe it is credible.
Behind false news there can be very different situations: from the desire to surprise and get more raises or similar, to the attempt to manipulate fear for one’s own benefit, to the difficulty of deciphering messages that resort to irony or paradox, especially when they reach people from different cultures or languages. On several occasions, even official channels have spread discordant messages or made use of unhappy expressions (for example, because they sounded veiledly threatening), feeding suspicions and conspiracy theories. Not to mention that in many regions of the world, starting with China itself, access to information can be very limited, for economic, technological or political control reasons: both excess and lack of information contribute to an increase in infection.
The perception of at least one potential danger on several interrelated fronts, amplified by the communicative confusion that impedes its focus, has triggered on several levels a series of reactions much less novel than the virus that attacked Wuhan. History and psychology (individual and collective) are well aware of them, but it is useful to be able to “isolate” them clearly in a relatively circumscribed situation, to learn how to grasp them even within the most complex ones.
The hoarding of the masks, which have also disappeared from our pharmacies, even in the absence of any indication of the opportunity to use them regularly in our country, is a good image of the first of these reactions: breaking contact, isolation. Countries do this by closing borders or restricting flights. Certainly, quarantine remains one of the most effective ways of stopping the spread of an epidemic, but without exaggerating unnecessarily. The search for immunity leads to cutting the relationship, identifying the other as a threat, not as someone facing the same problem. And when taken to the extreme, this attitude ends up withering the fertility that contact with diversity requires. To close any risk of contagion it would be necessary to make the borders impenetrable to any exchange, including goods (and even medicines!), and also to deprive those inside of the possibility of getting out. But this would quickly bring our open and integrated economies to their knees, forcing us to take a leap backwards that we could hardly find acceptable.
The subject is not only of our times, as indicated by the stigma that has marked those considered impure or polluting throughout the ages: the sick (for example, the leper), the foreigner (the Jew, the black, etc.), the leper (for example, the leper), the foreigner (the Jew, the black, etc.). ), the different ones (the one who does not conform to certain social dictates: according to the times, the sinner or the sinneress, the witch, the heretic, the homosexual or the adherent to certain ideologies, etc.), often with results that we fear today. The Gospels also bear witness to this, but they show us a different approach when they show us Jesus going beyond stereotypes and prejudices and causing scandal by touching lepers and sitting at table with sinners.
The more precise the details of the story, the clearer it becomes that the first “spontaneous” reaction of Chinese officials was to avoid causing a scandal. The persecution to which the first doctor to report something abnormal, Li Wenliang, who was later rehabilitated before his death by contagion, is the most obvious example. This is understandable behaviour within the system of power in China, which puts the maintenance of stability and the good name of the party first. Instead of running the risk of being seen as incapable of dealing with the problem if they had reported it, the local leaders – belatedly displaced by the central authorities – have preferred to try to keep it hidden in the hope that it would quickly deflate. Nothing new: it is the same logic that was followed by the Soviet bureaucratic apparatus in the early days of the Chernobyl nuclear accident.
Contrary to what we are sometimes invited to believe, a system that assigns very broad, if not full, powers is by no means a guarantee of security for those subject to it, because the occasion will inevitably arise when those who exercise them will have to choose whether to use them to protect themselves or the community.
Another short circuit quickly appeared, which when faced with a problem leads to the search not for the solution, but for the culprit, real or presumed. And then imagine that the way out is to eliminate him. This is the mechanism that lies at the base of the spread of chinophobia: from the refusal to consume Chinese products -although there is nothing to suggest that food and goods can transmit the contagion- or to frequent places run by Chinese people, to the worrying aggression against people who, because of their origin, are literally identified with the virus, as some stories report.
The hunt for the non-leader, or rather the attempt to restore peace and security to the community by identifying a scapegoat: a person (a group, a family, an ethnic group, a sect, a village, etc.), perhaps weak or not in a position to rebel, who is to blame for a collective evil and somehow get rid of it. The problem will not be solved, obviously, but for a certain time the anxieties and tensions in society will subside. This is a mechanism as well known as it unfortunately always lurks, and it is not by chance that at the same time we are experiencing an alarming return of anti-Semitism. It also includes the stubborn pursuit of conspiracy and the propensity for conspiracy, which in the post-truth world are exasperated in comparison with the past. Not a few have made unsubstantiated claims that the virus was created by the government for population control, or by other international “strong powers”. Needless to add, such falsehoods travel far in space and time, and must be “isolated” and not relayed, as is often done without even distancing or irony. Viruses do their job on all levels.
We almost don’t realize it, but we live immersed in a culture that rewards the ability to see an opportunity in any situation. It is true that the new coronavirus will represent a growth opportunity for some sectors: imagine what would happen to the value of the company’s shares if a cure or a vaccine were discovered! Then we should not forget that for speculation even moments of contraction can be very profitable: you win when prices vary, regardless of whether they go up or down. If then, as seems to be the case, central banks around the world will react by trying to support the economy against the risks of slowdown or recession with further solid injections of liquidity, this will also end up encouraging speculation.
But economic speculation is not the only advantage this situation will bring. There are many cases in which the circulation of false news has been stimulated by politicians, who play with the virus to achieve more consensus, perhaps in an anti-Chinese key.
Examining these disproportionate reactions is not an invitation to deny the problem: it would be equally irresponsible. A threat, although it may not seem appropriate at this time to call it apocalyptic, is there and must be handled in the best possible way. At all levels, therefore, we must identify the appropriate precautions and apply them scrupulously, but avoid excesses and hysteria. Precisely because it is part of reality, the virus must be dealt with realistically, by first assuming the limits of the situation in which we find ourselves. Our knowledge is still very incomplete and it will take time to perfect it and develop a vaccine. Unlike some hasty announcements, this will probably take several months, if not more than a year, as in most similar cases. In the meantime, it will be necessary to isolate the cases that have been confirmed and for everyone to carefully follow the ordinary rules of hygiene and relationships: wash your hands, cover yourself if you cough or sneeze.
This recourse to the principle of reality will protect us from the risks of ideological approaches, both those that minimize and those that find too quickly a simple solution to a complex problem, without taking into account all the facets. Adopting this attitude requires self-control and a sense of proportion, but it can also help us to safeguard other important assets besides public health, or rather to cope with infection not only in the health sector, but also in others affected by it.
All this implies different categories of actors: citizens, who must avoid being carried away by emotion; politicians, so that they act with reference to the common good, and not to some partisan interest (including the economic interest of those who support them); the business world, in its willingness to accept justified limitations, even if this means reducing profit margins.
Finally, recourse to the principle of reality in the face of the new coronavirus challenges the world of information and in particular the media. The raison d’être of the media and the journalistic profession is the possibility of helping the public to distinguish good information from bad, but the evolution of technology has often ended up transforming them into forums where every opinion has the same rights of citizenship. On sensitive issues like an epidemic, this is too risky. The challenge is then to try to find out how even the new media can regain a guiding role, helping to cure the infection they have been affected by. There are some positive signs of availability coming from the large social platforms, at least in terms of directing users to authorized sources. If they really find a way to do this, we will probably have discovered a better way to make use of their potential.
The same virus can potentially attack all members of the human species and, as we have seen, its effects can “infect” even areas that have nothing to do with our biology. Indeed a virus can represent the ideal type of common enemy and its threat can remind us how deep are the links and connections that unite the lives of human beings and the areas of their action. The best strategy against a common enemy has always been not to divide, but to ally, to make a common front, to fight together.
The practice of prudent forms of movement restriction and quarantine cannot become a pretext for giving in to the fallacious logic of isolationism or the immunity expected from it. The dynamics of infections remind us that the health of each person depends on that of all others worldwide: there is no sovereignty that counts. Health is originally a collective good: if I only protect my own health, or that of my fellow citizens and voters, efforts can be thwarted at any time by a threat from outside. That is why it makes sense to share knowledge in the health sector and to equip oneself with instruments of international cooperation and governance, such as the WHO, which will be able to intervene alongside the weakest countries and prevent news of possible emergencies from being neglected or hidden, thus increasing the risks to all. The right amount of quarantine must be combined with the right amount of cooperation and solidarity.
Devoting ourselves to understanding how to deal with this epidemic is an opportunity to learn what it means to live in the world of interconnections, to make our health systems more efficient and above all our societies and political systems more mature, so that we can do even better next time. The opportunity, of course, will not be lost.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
More information about our Cookie Policy
