Title : Competing public health ethics: Quarantining for safety vs. isolation anxiety and depression
Abstract:
The first response to the worldwide COVID19 pandemic was to impose extreme constraints on activities which could allow spreading of a virus. Offices switched to remote work, schools tried distance teaching, gyms closed and houses of worship abandoned live services and we entered a state of lockdown. Zoom became a new normal, and this may have slowed progression of infection and prevented collapse of the health care system. However, isolation probably harmed the population, children are often years behind in progress, mental health issues have soared. Statisticians will study different locations and the risk-benefit ratios of stringent precautions. This presentation by a healthcare ethics professional who is also a member of the clergy, will question if the value of communal activities was underappreciated by those who made the guidelines. Should the priority have been for small groups to continue communal activities? Should we have been pushing for outdoor class activities with students 6-8 foot apart? Outdoor religious services to continue spiritual support and congregational strength? Could it be that a scientific bias underestimates value of congregate activity. Implications for management of subsequent epidemics will also be discussed.
