Facts and Opinions on Social Distancing
(My Views in August 2020)
When it became clear early this year that the virus could not be contained, health authorities, including the WHO, urgently recommended social distancing to slow the spread of COVID-19. At the time, little was known about the novel coronavirus, despite insights gained from its “cousin” coronavirus SARS. Although both viruses share a common ancestor, SARS-CoV-2 evolved with significantly different properties. Science lacked precise data on its contagiousness and lethality. However, it soon became evident that it was more lethal than the seasonal flu and too transmissible to be globally contained. Moreover its asymptomatic transmission also made it clear that social distancing should be recommended.
Social distancing saves lives by buying time for scientists, doctors, industry, and governments to develop treatments and vaccines and plan other effective responses. It also prevents hospitals from being overwhelmed. In a world without medical infrastructure, social distancing would mostly delay the inevitable—at best, protecting vulnerable individuals (if they could be identified without medical knowledge) until herd immunity develops or the virus mutates into a less deadly form.
Social distancing does not mean isolation or lockdown. Rather, it is a spectrum of measures aimed at reducing viral transmission. Just as “distancing” is not all-or nothing measure, social distancing involves varying degrees of behavioral adjustments to limit spread. There has fortunately been much creativity worldwide in terms of maintaining physical distance, limiting gatherings, or using barriers.
The great strength of science is its ability to predict events in the observable universe. Without it, technology would not function reliably. Science has the eventual potential to make predictions about any aspect of the observable universe—those phenomena that can be studied using the scientific method and that yield consistent experimental results. Predicting the spread of a virus, whether in a population or within the human body, is one such application of scientific modeling. However, in a complex system such as viral spread, it is based on probabilities rather than certainty. Scientific predictions improve over time with better data and refined models, as science is a process.
Some may resist the idea of probability, assuming it means that anything is possible regardless of scientific predictions. While true for isolated events, this does not apply broadly. Probabilities become more reliable when applied to large systems rather than single events. A malfunctioning device does not negate the overall reliability of engineering, just as divine intervention remains outside the scope of scientific proof. Science and religion can coexist as separate domains, and if one believes that God created the universe, it follows that He also created the rational structures that science uncovers.
So, how does this relate to social distancing? The more science learns about Covid-19, the better it can predict outcomes and guide society. Scientific progress has already had a significant impact. Treatment advances have already reduced ICU mortality rates, as doctors gain insights into how the virus spreads and affects the body. Unlike humans, whose behavior is unpredictable, viruses lack free will and follow biological rules, making them subject to scientific prediction.
Science can predict that lockdowns are the most effective way to slow a virus, and in theory, a worldwide lockdown could eradicate it. However, humans are not just physical beings; they suffer emotionally and economically. COVID-19 is not the only crisis the world faces, nor the only health emergency. Rational thought—the same logic that drives science—also tells us that social distancing measures should balance benefits with societal harm. Unfortunately, in many regions, this balance was not achieved, exacerbating global hunger and economic distress. The privileged could isolate comfortably, while others struggled to survive.
Every act of social distancing earlier this year helped buy time for science and treatment development, and individual sacrifice merits gratitude. However, one-size-fits-all approaches unfortunately overlooked those who lost jobs, businesses, and access to healthcare, or who suffered from isolation and hunger. Dictating such sacrifice and misfortune shouldn’t ever be justified in the name of science.
We cannot redo the past. People sacrificed, and their efforts had a positive effect by giving science time to guide us more effectively. Economic collapse is not just about wealth loss—it directly impacts human well-being and survival. Science, our best tool for prediction, should guide but not dictate social distancing policies. An individual’s behavior now has a more direct impact on others’ lives than ever before. This moral burden may explain why so many remain in denial—it is a responsibility too vast to fully grasp.
Science now indicates that the virus is less deadly to the overall population than early data in January 2020 suggested. Perhaps its fatality rate is five times lower than some initial expert estimates, but we still do not know its exact mortality rate or how many individuals may develop chronic illness. Even so, if cars suddenly became five times safer, would that justify reckless driving? Fatal accidents would still occur. Science cannot answer the question of how much a life is worth—that lies beyond its domain. Science should inform social distancing policies, but it cannot be an authority that determines how much sacrifice is required. Yet it is clear that every individual’s behavior now has a more direct influence on the life expectancy of others. This presents a moral dilemma unlike any the world has faced before. Perhaps much denial now stems from the overwhelming weight of this responsibility.
In countries where citizens experience greater governmental control, individuals may not feel compelled to engage in deep moral introspection; they simply follow the rules. In contrast, in a nation like the US, where personal freedom is deeply valued, it is unsurprising that this moral dilemma has led to significant unrest. Freedom is valuable, but it inevitably reaches a boundary when one person’s actions begin to infringe upon the freedoms of others. This dilemma becomes even more pressing when individual actions can directly impact others’ chances of survival in an unprecedented way.
A reasonable solution is for all members of society to follow guidelines set by well-intentioned leaders informed by science. These leaders must also consider broader societal impacts, ensuring policies are flexible enough to avoid undue harm. A sign of respect is following public health measures that do not cause personal hardship. Instead of punishing those unwilling or unable to comply, society could reward those who make sacrifices for the greater good. After all, even religious and moral systems rarely define precisely how much suffering individuals must endure to protect the vulnerable.
My expertise lies in science, technology, and linguistics. I understand how science works, but I am not a philosopher. Still, rational thinking—shared by many successful scientists—suggests that to navigate this pandemic effectively, we must all contribute what we can rather than merely assert our entitlements.
Science continues to improve its predictions about the virus, but it should never be used to justify unnecessary suffering. We are all, unwillingly, part of a global experiment—one without absolute answers. No one has them, nor can they. Yet from this experience, we will gain knowledge to better withstand future pandemics. Instead of remaining entrenched in debate, we should listen to and learn from one another for the greater good of humanity.