The Corona virus pandemic is dominating headlines all over the world and it seems there is no other topic anyone is talking about. Daily updates on the number of cases are as ubiquitous as the number of opinions on the correct way to deal with this crisis. This post is not one of them, but rather contains some general observations about current developments.

Countries have reacted very differently to this outbreak, although the majority has opted for rather strict measures, meaning severe restrictions of the rights of their citizens. In many countries a curfew is in place, either outright prohibiting people to leave their houses at certain times or for “non-essential” activities, some places mandate wearing masks, and others use smartphones to track people’s movement. The effectiveness or non-effectiveness of these measures is a hotly discussed topic on every platform, from social media to Feuilleton, and, as usual, everyone seems to have the answer.

As with any popular contentious issue, proponents can broadly be grouped into two groups; those who think that this pandemic is so dangerous that all and any measures to curb it are justified and those who think that it is not that bad and that countries who do implement measures are overreacting. The former group likens the other to climate-change deniers that don’t want to accept an obviously visible truth, while the latter says that the other is too quick in giving up civil liberties and that the economic and social consequences of a prolonged shutdown will outweigh those of an unhampered spread of the virus. I am not including the conspiracy theorists that inevitably pop up in such situations in either of these groups.

Both groups, of course, have their “experts” whose arguments they field in any discussion, their data, their interpretation of the data, and their own set of ethical and moral beliefs. What they both have in common is that their proponents usually focus on some isolated case or figure to make their argument. The Believers point to Italy or Spain, where hospitals were hopelessly over-burdened and so many people died in a short time that their bodies had to be transported off by the military. The Deniers talk about Sweden and its relaxed approach which has not led to a collapse of the health system. The Believers say that in Sweden the number of deaths is comparatively higher than in Germany and that scientists there are advising the government to take stricter measures. The Deniers say that in Italy the high number of cases is not due to the danger of Corona itself, but rather the abysmal state of the health system which was dismantled in the aftermath of the last financial crisis, and that in Sweden the majority of the population (including “risk groups”) is backing the government’s approach.

This brings us to the only real truth here: no one knows. Even credible experts like virologists and epidemiologists have widely differing opinions on many aspects of the virus and this epidemic. There is a lot of available data now, but there is also a lot of data that isn’t available. These known and unknown unkowns are equally important in understanding such a complex issue as the effects of the virus itself and any measures against its spread. There is not a single country from which we know the actual number of infected people and how the number of deaths is measured varies substantially between countries, as such there is no reliable way to tell the deadliness of COVID-19. The number of cases itself depends on testing policy and the availability of test kits, so that it can at best be seen as an indicator. We all remember how the number of cases jumped by several thousands in Wuhan within a day due to a new testing method or the recent correction of the number of cases in France.

Since COVID-19 is new, there is naturally no comparative historical data, but what makes matters worse is that there is also no reliable data on comparable diseases. Before I continue and people lynch me for daring to even compare Influenza to Corona, let me point out a few things. Yes, Corona is very different from Influenza in many aspects. First and foremost, it is new and therefore, very little is known about it. Additionally, there is no vaccine, and while the flu vaccine only protects against certain strains of Influenza, the virus itself is a lot better understood and in case of a dangerous mutation a vaccine could probably be developed rather quickly. Furthermore, both Influenza and Corona can cause a pneumonia which is potentially deadly, there are differences in the the type of pneumonia they cause. Influenza weakens the immune system so that it becomes more likely for bacteria to infect you and cause a bacterial pneumonia, Corona seems to attack the respiratory system itself and thus causes a viral pneumonia. That is probably why many infected show none or very weak symptoms, but for those that do have symptoms the disease takes a more serious course, necessitating intensive medical care.

Yet despite these differences, Influenza is similar in the way it is transmitted and in the respiratory problems it causes which are main reason for death. Consequently, it does make sense to compare the two, taking into account the facts above. However, as stated above, even for Influenza, a virus that has been around for a very long time, it is not easy to find reliable, comparable data. In Germany, for instance, laboratory confirmed Influenza cases are reported to and published by the Robert-Koch Institute (RKI) on a weekly basis. However, this leaves out every non-diagnosed case of people that either didn’t show any symptoms or never went to the doctor. Furthermore, the RKI states in its seasonal report that the number of confirmed cases not necessarily depends on the severity of the Influenza season, but on how often the medical institute initiated a laboratory diagnostic. Regarding the number of deaths the situation is even worse, as described in the report, Influenza is often not recorded as the cause of death even though it was diagnosed and was a significant factor in the cause of death. For this reason, the RKI and similar institutes in other countries calculate the excess mortality due to Influenza based on sentinel analyses and historical mortality data. In short, even if we wanted to compare the Corona epidemic to the seasonal flu, it would be almost impossible to do so in a meaningful way.

Having realised that we barely know anything about this virus and its epidemic, let alone what, if any, are the right measures to fight it, we can start to draw some conclusions about why people act the way they do. Although this is somehow trivial to say, this epidemic has made evident that people have an urgent need to believe in something. Accepting the unknown is simply not an option for most people and politicians. Knowing as much or as little as everyone else, politicians take decisions in this situations of uncertainty, trying to provide a narrative that people can believe in. This is understandable, no one wants to be responsible for a disaster by not doing enough, so they do something, possibly causing more harm than good. This is what we have to be aware of and it means we above all have to continue to openly negotiate this process as a society and not proclaim one way as the only right one.

I think that the Believers and Deniers are basically distinguished by their moral standard, and, importantly, I don’t think that one is better or worse than the other. The first group are people that react to any possiblity of harm to human life in the way that a nurse or a fireman would react; their instinct is to do anything possible to prevent the loss of life. The other group takes a more utilitarian approach, thinking about the consequences that now doing anything possible will have down the line and whether in the end more lives might be lost with doing less now. Importantly, both groups maxime is to preserve human life, not to preserve the economy or anything else.

I personally feel uncomfortable in supporting any approach that does not have the preservation of as many lives as possible right now as its guiding principle. This is simply because anything in the future is uncertain, while saving any one person’s life now is certain. However, I think it is imperative to think a step further and wonder about how this is handled in other, similar, situations. Notwithstanding the stark differences between the flu and COVID-19, it is unquestionable that people that go to work while being sick with the flu are putting lives at risk. Making the influenza vaccination mandatory, social distancing, and wearing masks during the flu season would likely reduce the number of flu-deaths significantly, so if the immediate preservation of lives were the absolute maxime at any time, shouldn’t these measures be implemented every year? A similar argument could be made about smoking or driving limits.

In conclusion, the guiding principle on almost anything in our society is utilitarian in nature. I don’t say this to endorse it; I am merely stating a fact. Indeed, I think this moment could be a valuable opportunity to change things to the better. I am doubtful that it will be used though.