Journal of the plague year 2: For afterwards

Back in March the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, referred briefly to why London had only 800 ICU beds when this crisis started, though it would need 8,000. But, he said, “That’s for afterwards.” Meaning, there are going to be important questions to answer about various localities’ preparedness for this pandemic, but right now, he was interested not so much in why we only had 800 beds as how we were going to get thousands.

       I think that is a good focus to have. As we—not just one nation, but the world—try to get through this pandemic together, I don’t think we need anything that is going to unnecessarily ratchet up anxiety levels or divisions. But I’m spending a lot of time thinking about what we can learn “for afterwards.” 

       Not who did what wrong. That, I believe, is simply not something we can know with any accuracy until the present crisis is over, or perhaps for years. Besides, it’s not helpful (see anxiety, above). There surely are lessons to learn, but in this time, I don’t believe anyone should be wasting energy pointing the finger of blame, that could be used to help. 

As the character Bea writes to her husband in Michael Faber’s The Book of Strange New Things: “Someone at work said to me this morning, ‘Where is God in all this?’ I didn’t rise to the bait. I can never understand why people ask that question. The real question for the bystanders of tragedy is ‘Where are WE in all this?’”

What is helping me, and may possibly help you, is to think about what we can appreciate during this time, and ways we might take that into a better future for everybody.

Here’s one: Resist the temptation to go back to the old ways, whether those are assumptions about how our economic system has to work, or easy labeling of right and left. It was Newt Gingrich, of all people, who pointed out early in the crisis that there are tens of thousands of homeless people on the streets of U.S. cities, and what if they get sick? They can’t self-isolate, whether to protect themselves or protect others. But this also shows that we have underlying conditions of the health of our society. There should never be tens of thousands of homeless people. I know the causes of homelessness are complex, and perhaps it will never be completely solved. But that doesn’t mean we should go back to tolerating it. Not taking care of homeless people will not only cost their lives, but other people’s lives. We simply can not afford to let this go on.

We need to think about whether we are prepared to go on being the type of society we are. Many people probably were not previously aware of the now thrown-around fact, that many American and British children from low-income families depend on schools just to eat. There should never be kids who will go hungry if they don’t go to school. 

You don’t have to be a democratic socialist to wonder: Why are half of Americans living from paycheck to paycheck? We might prefer smaller government, but without massive government intervention in the present, what do we expect those people to do? Conservatives know this as well. It's a Conservative government in Britain, and a Republican-dominated one in the U.S., that have shelled out a bunch of money for people. Already some are speculating that this may be used in the future as a way to buy electoral loyalty, but that doesn’t change the fact that huge government spending is what was needed. Right at that moment.

Besides nursing homes, where alarming death rates are unfolding in Britain and other countries, many severe outbreaks in the U.S. are taking place in prisons and meatpacking plants. The former should be no surprise; the more people are close together, the higher the rates of infection, and at the risk of sounding like a Bernie Sanders stump speech, the U.S. incarcerates more of its population than any country except communist China. It’s beyond the scope of this article to sort out the country’s punitive culture, but unless we are to imagine that Americans are, as a people, far more wicked than others, these percentages make about as much sense as the levels of gun violence. 

As for the latter, so extensive that the nation’s meat supply has been affected, the U.S. consumes more meat per capita than any country on earth. I’m no more a militant vegetarian than I am a criminal justice expert. All I am asking is: Can’t we do better?

"Crises have a way of exposing inequalities that linger uncomfortably below the surface when times are good."

In our thanks for the heroism of everyone who stepped up to help, we should remember that it is criminal that health care workers, in the most expensive system in the world, had to depend on friends or strangers sewing them homemade fabric masks. The failure to implement guidelines on personal protective equipment sooner, as soon as the evidence was there, cost lives; I know, and I’m sure you know, of examples personally.

In our thanks for the heroism of workers who risk their lives, we should no longer tolerate a United States of America where GoFundMe is where ordinary people go to raise money for their medical bills. Middle-class people, never mind the poorest. Call it Medicare, call it Obamacare or whatever you want to, but we can no longer tolerate a system where working people are afraid to go to the doctor lest they be bankrupted—or deported. It’s not just their emergency anymore. It was everybody’s emergency, and we could have done so much better.

Other things we may end up questioning:

·      The brilliance of “just in time” supply chains to retail. Of having everything manufactured in China so we can have “everyday low prices.” Now, we are suffering from the “Chinese virus,” only to find that vital parts for the very supplies that will help fight that virus must come from—China. And Russia, and other countries we would rather not be dependent on. The Defense Production Act, recently invoked by the U.S. administration, is a good start, but the U.S. is not the manufacturing powerhouse it was in the Korean war era. We need other countries, whether we like it or not.

“For years, it was cheaper to manufacture those key ingredients overseas and keep just enough of the product on hand." 

"Nobody had stockpiles."

 “We need to be willing to pay a little more during times of peace without crisis so we have supply available during crisis.”

Brendan Carr, chair of emergency medicine at Mount Sinai Health System in New York: “You can’t have extra capacity and efficiency at the same time,” he said. “In fact, for years, we’ve called that waste.”

These problems are not, of course, confined to America. Anders Melander, an analyst with the Swedish Defense Research agency, said, “We expected with the free market we would always be able to purchase what we needed," according to The New York Times.

“It’s not really a great plan,” Mr. Melander noted. “It’s like saying: ‘I don’t have to have a fire extinguisher. I can run out and buy a fire extinguisher when the fire starts.’ It shows that this free market is only free when everything is fine.”

·      The “gig economy.” People earning their living by driving Ubers or hopping on their mopeds to deliver takeout. It all sounded so flexible and futuristic in Economist articles, but now, those workers are forced to choose between following public health advice (social distancing, not working if they or their families are symptomatic) and feeding their families. The only thing that can free them from this dilemma is massive government spending. Conservative politicians who have spent their entire careers telling us that the state should be as small as possible and the market will figure everything out are finding that the government is the only thing that can move big enough, fast enough, to make a difference when lives are on the line.

This is going to show us, in any society, what kind of society we are. It is going to show the fault lines. Europeans would be shocked to discover that in the U.S., your water can be turned off if you don’t pay a bill. This happened to 1.5 million Americans last year. How are those people supposed to wash their hands? That’s not just their problem anymore—it’s everybody’s. If we care about ourselves and our families, we need to care about others.

Free enterprise is a great way to run an economy, but we can no longer kid ourselves that businesses are, or should be, independent of the wider public interest. They’re the first to run to government for a bailout. As for a corporate entity being allowed to trump the individual citizen, as one wag observed, “I’ll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.”

Nonetheless, we don’t really want the airlines to go bust. Many of us rely on air travel, at least in part, to visit relatives and friends who are spread across the globe. But that is a privilege, and we should ask whether we want to go back to artificially cheap holiday flights, or something approaching the real cost of flying, to the planet as a whole. 

I reiterate: This is not just a matter of left-leaning solutions that some of us were already inclined to anyway. There are many differences between Germany under Chancellor Angela Merkel and other countries with other political leaders. Surely the most important difference, unforgettable now, is not Merkel’s ideology (she’s conservative) but the remarkably low rate of deaths in Germany, which has had highly organized testing at an incredibly high level compared with almost any other nation. Trust in Merkel’s leadership and her calm, clear communication has also played a role. In easier times, politics is an interest or a sideshow, depending on whether it has consequences for us personally. Suddenly, now, it matters to everybody who is in charge of the government. Every day that passes is a matter of life and death.

Here is another example. This emergency has required unprecedented measures, some of which unquestionably restrict our civil liberties. Some concerns have been raised about this, typically coming from people who lean conservative, while others, who lean in the other direction, point out that it is an emergency and we simply have to take these measures now. But the concerns aren’t unfounded. They are just coming from the opposite direction from in 2001, when, in response to September 11, Americans’ civil liberties were restricted by the Patriot Act. Then, people who leaned left were concerned that there weren’t enough safeguards, or timed reviews, built into the restrictions, and so they would never be taken away.

We were right. The Patriot Act is still with us. It is not only possible, but right, to be both concerned about taking the right emergency measures and not giving away powers to government that it tends not to give back. It is perhaps not well remembered now that during the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, many gay activists strongly resisted the closing of the bathhouses as a public health measure. They feared that gay people would be targeted and punished. The public health imperative prevailed, but the fears were real, in a country where homosexuality was reviled and largely criminalized.

Yet this crisis is also showing that pointing fingers to the usual suspects is no more helpful from the left than from the right. Big banks are justifiably blamed for their screw-ups in the 2008 financial crisis, but now, without the banks’ help, small businesses and those who work for them will be in trouble. Without the help of pharmaceutical companies, life-saving research and development won’t happen.

One of the most breathtaking aspects of the U.S. economic discussion has been the complete taking for granted that a whole swath of the the economy, without which so many double incomes could not be made, is outside legality. “One family laid off its nanny but wondered if she would video chat with the children for free.”

I don't blame the workers in this situation, who are only some of those breaking immigration law. I blame employers who were only too happy to exploit the black market when times were good, but the moment trouble happened, dropped their workers as if they were not even human beings. This system is not sustainable, and it is not right.

Everyone knows the immigration system is broken, but bipartisan efforts to sort it out have failed, because of ideological intransigence. On the right, immigrants and all things foreign make targets for nationalism, while on the left, there seems to be an incapability of recognizing that there’s such a thing as illegal immigration at all. Meanwhile what’s broken is also systematic: an entire chunk of the economy, tolerated if not indispensable, that is as much about illegal employment as it is about the employees.

Globalization, this neoliberal reality we have all been laboring under since the late 1970s, is all so clever when it works. But we are learning that this new globalized economy is as vulnerable as its most authoritarian government and its most lax environmental laws. And we are also learning how interdependent we are for good. In an app-based, increasingly isolating world, we find that there is no substitute for human contact, after all.

When we go back, or rather forward, into whatever the new “normal” will be, I wonder if permanent alterations in behavior will result. For example, when eventually people return to bars and restaurants and in-person get-togethers, will they appreciate that being able to see and even touch another person is a different experience from talking via a screen? Or will they, even while present with another person, revert to phoning someone else?

I see I have written a highly critical post. But as ever, it’s not all bad news. Our neighbors’ gardens (backyards) are getting more use than they have in a while: gardening, laundry on the line, and on the other side, a daddy playing football with his little girl.

Faith, hope, and love are not canceled. Faith in others to do the right thing. Hope that we can learn from this and continue to do better. Love for each other and this precious world.

10 hopes from the apocalypse

Back in early March, when the epicenter of the pandemic seemed to be moving to Spain, I saw images of a ghostly Madrid. Places like the Prado Museum, so crowded when we visited, were closed, the streets outside empty except for police. 

We are used to apocalypse meaning the end times, but as in the title of the last book of the New Testament, Apocalypse really means Revelation. This pandemic is revealing some of the best and most heroic aspects of our human nature. Also some things that don’t work and what we should find astonishing.

There are few silver linings amidst all the death and destruction, but surely one of them is the opportunity, in this enforced pause, to think about what we appreciate (or miss) and how we could make the future better. Resist the temptation to return to “normal”—including reverting to our well-worn personal biases. Learn from this time when everybody is on the same side.

This is a work in progress because I'm still learning. But here are 
10 things I hope we learn:

1.       We have to take care of other species, if only for the sake of our own. Zoonoses—infections, like the novel coronavirus, that hop from animals to humans—are becoming more common, and this one has proven an unprecedented disaster. If we want to protect the livelihoods and indeed lives of millions of people, markets in wildlife like those in China, for example, have to remain closed. Changing the way we farm and treat other animals can no longer be treated as nice-to-haves, or some inherent conflict with the important business of looking after human beings. Our lives are connected with theirs.

2.       Taking care of the environment is not a luxury either, and it has quickly become apparent just how possible it is. Businesses that for years have resisted letting employees work from home have suddenly found, when told they have to do so, that it is possible. Air travel has ground to a halt yet technology still allows us to meet with others around the world. Since any future travel will be more than we are allowed now, surely there are ways to continue living with less pollution.
We have seen, within weeks, extraordinary reductions in levels of pollution, in cities like New York and Los Angeles. We have seen clear skies in Beijing and fish swimming in the Venice canals. No one could bear carrying on with the terrific human costs of this pandemic, but when the crisis has passed, we have an opportunity to gain something with regard to an even greater crisis for all generations—the climate emergency. All air travel cannot be canceled (at least, not for those of us who live oceans apart), but surely we will have learned to live without some of it. Having managed so many business meetings online, do we really need to resume flying people around the world for work?

As Richard Nelson Bolles pointed out years ago in What Color is Your Parachute?, until the Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century almost everyone worked at home. They had a farm, or a blacksmith shop, or a bakery. With so many reluctant employers having found, when push came to shove, that it's perfectly possible for their workers to be productive at home, do we really need them all to resume coming back into the office? Sometimes, perhaps, but surely not commuting every day. We have an opportunity here to reduce stress as well as greenhouse gas emissions.
If we learn only one lesson from the sacrifices people are currently making, I hope it is that as younger workers stayed home to protect older generations, we can grab this chance to save the planet for future generations.

3.       The flip side of this, of course, is those who must and have continued going to work. While I, for example, work at home anyway, I couldn’t if I had to go into an emergency room to work, or drive a bus. Have we noticed who is truly keeping life going during this extraordinary period? Health care workers, first responders, transport personnel, delivery drivers, grocery store workers, postal workers, trash collectors. And in many cases, these most essential workers, including carers who are overwhelmingly women and disproportionately people of color, are not compensated fairly in the first place. And they have risked their lives. Almost every health care worker in the U.K. who has died of COVID-19 has been black or a member of an ethnic minority. Non-white people make up a share of health care workers in this country that is far beyond their proportion in the population. 

Will we remember key workers, like the brave veterans of the war that this is, and value them properly in the future?

4.       Human rights are not just individual rights. We, especially Americans, are used to thinking of the Bill of Rights, such as our right to assemble; we notice that this is curtailed, and that is a very serious matter. But why is health care not a basic right? Why, at a time of catastrophic mass unemployment, is it tied to people’s jobs? We should be asking this question even if we have different ideas about how to address it. If our neighbors get sick but are afraid to go to the doctor, because they can’t pay or don’t have the right immigration documents, that’s not just too bad for them. It has a cascading impact on other people, who do have insurance and citizenship. The interest of the entire community is served by some kind of basic health care coverage. I hope we can find a solution to this instead of just falling back on tired partisan tropes.

Since this all probably sounds pretty left-of-center so far, here’s a different example. Some people in Britain, particularly critics of the Conservatives, have been quick to criticize the prime minister’s reluctance to restrict civil liberties. Boris Johnson seemed incredulous when first asked if the police could have a role. But I’d rather him hesitate than, like Viktor Orban in Hungary, take advantage of the pandemic to make the country more authoritarian. Hungary’s parliament has expanded Orban’s powers with no time limit. Here is a country right in Europe, not long free from communism, and at the first hurdle, checks and balances have failed. 

So although I’m not a Johnson fan, I would rather have a government whose instinct is to preserve civil liberties, rather than take the first opportunity to limit them. How much better for the government to step in once the public in general was clamoring for these drastic measures, than to impose them earlier and just have them flouted.

5.       Collective action is a real thing. Like most people, I was slow to think of this disease in terms of collective risk. I understood (or thought I understood) my personal risk of catching the disease, and what I could do to minimize my spreading it to others, even if I was asymptomatic. But the strange thing about flattening the curve is that it isn’t so much about the risk of any one person spreading it to any other individual nearby. By staying home and out of each other’s way, we aren’t so much protecting individuals, or even their families and others they must interact with. It only works on a total, numerical level—to bring down the average rate of infection, and slow the spread. That is a remarkably hard concept to understand.

Here’s a simpler, practical example: The “beg” button at pedestrian crosswalks. We shouldn’t be touching those now anyway, but they are entirely for the convenience of drivers; the assumption is that road traffic should flow uninterrupted unless a pedestrian demands otherwise. For years, many North American cities have resisted nudging things in pedestrians’ and cyclists’ direction instead, saying it would be impossible. Now we are told not to make nonessential journeys and to walk or cycle for exercise, and suddenly, it’s possible. Cities should continue this nudge, because it would help tackle the deadly obesity problem and all its attendant health concerns, not just because it helps clear the air.

6.       Government, and whether we can trust public institutions, really matter. Do our elected officials have, and importantly listen to, expert advisors? Or is everyone just choosing his or her own conspiracy theory off the Internet? Suddenly, that’s a matter of life and death.

7.       Thrift, an almost archaic word, is actually a real virtue. As are old-fashioned things, like a postcard put through a neighbor’s letter box, offering help. Not everyone, as Trish has pointed out, can use a phone. Certainly not everyone has the wherewithal to use more recent technology.

The other day on BBC Radio 4, someone was urging us, when we find a chicken, to roast it, cut the rest up and make a stir fry, then boil the carcass for soup. A couple of generations ago this was normal; Trish and I were already doing it. Will we, in the future First World, continue buying too much food and just wasting it? Or will we remain more aware of the value of what we have, and the work that goes into getting it to us?

8.       “Social distancing” really means physical distancing. Not long before things got weird here, Trish and I went to a pub where someone she knew was performing with his band. I had feared we’d been to our last concert together, and so we were delighted to find that Trish could get something out of live music that she can’t from recordings. We were looking forward to doing it again, though now we don’t know when “again” will be.

But while we maintain physical distance from friends and relatives, we have also been brought closer together. For the first time outside Toronto, I’m able to join in services with the Church of the Holy Trinity, as are people living in other provinces and countries. One week the music was led by someone in New Brunswick; another friend dropped into coffee hour from her current home in Saskatoon.

My cousin used to call my dad her “Fake Father” because of her special relationship with our family. Well, we have “pretend nieces” in Illinois, the only people in the world who call me “Auntie.” We rarely get to see them, but now they’re on Skype to me all the time.

9.       If you live in the northern hemisphere, have you noticed birdsong recently? The swallows, cuckoos, and other birds are on their return migration to this part of the world. A cuckoo (yet another thing I’ve learned from the radio) weighs less than “a packet of crisps,” but flies all the way from Africa to the village where it was hatched. The birds are singing everywhere, and more people are aware of them, because they are home, and going outside for once-daily exercise.

Trish now starts her essential job, at the grocery store, at 5:00 AM so that she can get the shelves stocked before customers come in. It’s a good idea from a distancing point of view. When I can’t go back to sleep, I listen to Radio 4, which at that hour is still the BBC World Service. This is followed by such rarefied listening as the Shipping Forecast and Farming Today. Then, just before the Today programme kicks off at 6:00, there’s the “Tweet of the Day.” Nothing to do with Twitter or its most execrable practitioners—it’s literally a tweet, the song of a bird, and two minutes of information about that species.

10.   Most of all, will we recognize that our lives are, quite truly, in each other’s (washed) hands? Depending on each other is not just a quaint ideal of community, and trying to shop—or shoot—our way out of this crisis will only make it worse. In a society that glorifies freedom and individual choice, we need each other, need other people to do the right thing. We must recognize, as the Christian says to God, “I cannot do it on my own.”

A few weeks ago now, our next-door neighbor texted me that the international space station was about to pass overhead and her family was all going out in the garden. I stepped outside for a chat (from our usual safe distance over the fence) and couldn’t believe how clear the sky was, how many stars. Certainly where we live, in the flight path of Heathrow airport, I’d never seen such stars in London. Perhaps it was the absence of most flights, or just less pollution in general. 

I picked out Orion’s belt, and Tracey told me the bright planet I could see in another part of the sky was Venus. I don’t remember ever knowingly seeing Venus before. Then a small lit object appeared, moving steadily in a straight line from Venus past the moon, until it winked out like a sunset. 

That was the space station. Human-made and human-occupied, but in time with the music of the natural spheres. Maybe it’s still possible to coexist. And we didn’t even have to leave the backyard.

Happy Earth Day.

-->

Journal of the plague year 1

It seems hard to believe now, but one month ago was the date that the National Basketball Association suspended its season after its first player tested positive for the novel coronavirus. That was the same date that Tom Hanks and his wife, Rita Wilson, announced that they were self-isolating with the viral infection. It has been exactly one month since the lives of many in the U.K., North America, and elsewhere were changed, as drastically as they’ve changed in generations.

We will have occasion, eventually, to wonder why it didn’t seem real until a month ago, even as it ravaged first China and then Italy. Perhaps it is human nature to expect things to go on normally, until they don’t. Certainly this situation is unprecedented, and more global in its scale than anything the world has gone through previously, at least since the Second World War. 

The war comparison is apt, but perhaps not for the reasons politicians think. Americans especially have grown accustomed to “wars” that are undeclared, that drag on endlessly, yet only ever involve a small number of people (at least on the U.S. side). They are not wars in the sense that World War II was a war, where real sacrifice was demanded on the home front. This was even truer in Europe, where civilians as well as military personnel were in danger of death. Now, for the first time in most living people’s memory, we are being called upon to face an unexpected and largely unknown danger. The timing and the outcome are uncertain. 

Many of us are facing only a very low level of danger in this war, but a large number of people are taking greater risks. We are not accustomed to thinking of war this way—not against some other nation or group whose fault it is, but against a disease. A disease that clearly does not discriminate. The virus can lay low Tom Hanks and the British prime minister. It does not care if its host is Spanish or Chinese.

We are also not accustomed to thinking of disease this way. Since World War II, in fact, we have had antibiotics, and they have been the “miracle drugs” despite our best efforts to overuse and thereby dilute them. Vaccinations, despite the freedom of people in democratic societies to forego them, have largely removed child mortality from our privileged societies. People of my generation and younger were never even vaccinated against smallpox; it was considered eradicated. Most research and investment goes into the diseases of rich societies: heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes mellitus. In wealthy Western nations, millions of adults take a class of drugs (statins) not because they have heart disease, but for a risk factor. We don’t even need a disease for a drug, and yet now, here is a new disease, for which we have no drugs. Nothing like this has arrived since HIV, which was transmitted in different ways and to different subsets of people.

We did not expect a communicable disease, against which the human body has no defense, to come against us and spread death from another person’s cough. That happened in other centuries—and happens, of course, in other societies. Though there were clues. The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Asia in 2003 spread to Toronto, where I was living at the time. For a while, we got used to seeing people wearing masks, and the cancellation of events, and visitors not coming to Toronto from other places. I got a new doctor during that time and it was months before I saw her face.

SARS went away and, importantly, has not returned (in the way that seasonal flu does). In part, that’s because it was well contained by public health measures, but it probably couldn’t have been were it not for particular characteristics. Unlike the novel coronavirus (whose official name is SARS-CoV-2), the first SARS seems not to have become communicable until a person was already showing symptoms. That made it much easier to identify and isolate who was sick than is the case with COVID-19.

In an interview in the spring of 2019, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke with FiveThirtyEight’s Anna Rothschild. He made some comments then that did not make it into the article she was writing at the time, but now seem very prescient. When asked what kept him up at night, Fauci said: 

the thing I’m most concerned about as an infectious disease physician and as a public health person is the emergence of a new virus that the body doesn’t have any background experience with, that is very transmissible, highly transmissible from person to person, and has a high degree of morbidity and mortality.

Now what I’ve essentially done is paint the picture of a pandemic influenza. Now it doesn’t have to be influenza. It could be something like SARS. SARS was really quite scary. Thankfully, it kind of burned itself out by good public health measures. But the thing that worries most of us in the field of public health is a respiratory illness that can spread even before someone is so sick that you want to keep them in bed. And that’s really the difference.

We will have occasion, eventually, to wonder a lot about preparation and warning. The obvious comparison from my lifetime is September 11, and yet that really isn’t much of a comparison. More people are dying every day from COVID-19 than were killed on September 11. Unlike then, most if not all countries in the world are affected. How America responded to September 11, how it became a different place from the country I grew up in, is a better comparison than the deaths. How has our world already changed as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, and which of those changes will outlast the pandemic? Could some of them even be positive? 

As I journal through this plague year, I am really resisting making the kind of judgments that can only be made by history. There are a lot of things we will have occasion, eventually, to pass judgment on. And it is tempting to foresee lessons in this that are biased towards one’s own predispositions. For example, to me, having lived with good public health care systems for twenty years, the U.S. for-profit hospital system—that has parts of America begging for health care workers while those in other parts are laid off*—seems crazy. Life-threatening. But that doesn't mean I know how, precisely, the U.S. ought to go about insuring everyone. COVID-19 doesn’t answer questions; it only raises them. 

What I think, cautiously, I can do is note the things that seem to be working, and some things that don’t, and ask the question, which might we incorporate into a future (please God) beyond the pandemic? There are relatively few people who are not reflecting at least a little bit, in this forced pause, on what is truly important. There is plenty of bad news to make us anxious, and finger-pointing if we want to get really worked up, but what can we learn in this time?

One thing that I am, humbly, learning is that I read and work on science papers all day, yet I didn’t have a very good idea of how science actually works. I read about the new virus and the damage it was doing in other countries in December, January, February, yet somehow, I wasn’t fully expecting the dramatic extent of what we are being asked to do in the U.K. until the day we were asked to do it. This is one reason I’m hesitant to declare that this or that person or agency should have known or done better months earlier. Science writer Maggie Koerth described this very well: Most of us learned, in school science classes, that science works by experiment, and then you have a fact, and you go memorize that fact and now we know something. When science is actually happening, though, it is not very clear at all. The novel coronavirus is something scientists just don’t know much about yet, although their efforts to tackle it are unprecedented, both in scale and speed (pretty much all other research having ground to a halt in the meantime). 

The Imperial College modeling I wrote about previously, for instance, has had enormous impact and yet, like many other studies being published so rapidly, was not peer reviewed. Peer review is normally an essential part of scientific research, to keep unprovable and unreplicable ideas from spreading in the academic realm and beyond. Like other safeguards, it’s not foolproof, but we should keep in mind that the models we are seeing (from Imperial or elsewhere) are still just based on assumptions. They may turn out, in retrospect, not to have been very accurate at all. The best we can hope is that we end up with far less death and destruction from this disease than the models predicted—but that won’t necessarily tell us that the models were wrong, just that we did a good job reacting to them.

I actually find the science kind of inspiring, because while politicians and others are tempted to blame other nations or pull up the drawbridge, research, especially on an urgent matter like this disease, is not about national rivalry. Colleagues in many countries share resources and are exchanging information about the virus as fast as they can, knowing that lives are at stake. As The New York Times recently reported, the closest comparison may be the very different plague that I remember from my own youth—AIDS, which ravaged Western communities in the 1980s and early ’90s. But today’s technology provides options, and speed, that researchers during the AIDS crisis did not have. (Thanks to Anthony Fauci and many others, HIV, which we first knew as a 100% fatal infection, has become a chronic disease, that it is possible--for those with resources--to live with.)

A lot of people are probably seeing more exponential graphs and grappling with data more than ever in their lives before. What we find most unnerving, besides the worry that we or someone we know may get sick, is the uncertainty. We are really not used to this. We expect the basketball season, Wimbledon, the Olympic and Paralympic Games to happen on time. We expect to go to work and for places to be open and to be able to fly to see someone in person, if we have the money. (Almost all the things we suddenly miss are things we could only ever do with money, and if this didn't occur to us before, I hope we are aware of it now.)

We all know that unexpected things can happen in life, to individuals. But most of us have no context to prepare us for something that affects everybody, the entire earth. 

And the uncertainty, more than COVID-19, is killing us. Will these lockdown measures work? We hope so, experts think they see signs of hope, but we don’t know in detail. When and how will they end? No one can tell us. Should I wear a mask? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say yes, the World Health Organization says no, and each has plausible reasons. Would it be better if the children went back to school? Maybe yes, maybe no. When? No one knows.

For the past three Thursday evenings, people across the U.K. have opened their doors and windows at 8:00 and clapped, banged pots and pans, and generally applauded carers and National Health Service workers doing such a heroic job. For people in other countries, it's hard to explain what the N.H.S. means to Britain. Long before this present crisis, it was hands down the most popular institution in the country. At the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics, the featured sketch was people dressed as doctors and nurses, dancing around a hospital set. The “Brexit” campaign, which so divided people, was largely fought about how to get more money to the N.H.S.--something I've never heard anyone oppose.

But Britain’s response to the pandemic has been far from flawless and that’s not my point here. What happens each Thursday is that we look across and up and down our road and see our neighbors clapping, just as we are. They are all home, of course. We wave to them, sometimes chat (from a safe distance), and see that they are all right. Our neighbors on one side have a backyard separated from ours by a low fence, and the weather’s been nice, so we have regularly chatted with them. But on the other side, our neighbor Amy is someone we ordinarily don’t see for months at a time. We like Amy; she’s lived here much longer than I have. But in normal times, she’s out at work late, and has a busy social life. Other than at Christmas or the random bumping into her in town, I could go a year without talking to her. 

Not now. Now, I look forward every week to seeing Amy, and the guys across the street, and others who I always kind of know are there for us, but we don’t interact with. Now, everyone is knocking themselves out on a WhatsApp group and can’t do enough for each other. We can’t meet our friends in town or our family across the ocean, so we meet our neighbors. On the street, over the backyard fence, and every Thursday at 8:00 P.M.

In another part of the world, war-torn Yemen, a ceasefire has been announced. COVID-19 has arrived there too, and the Saudis and Iranians and their proxies, having just about destroyed the country, have been persuaded to give peace a chance, so there is at least some hope of enough stability to address this disease. 

The pandemic has brought Yemen and the neighborhoods of well-off countries a little closer together than they were before. It isn’t a rich-country disease, for which expensive drugs are developed and U.S. hospital systems are tailored. It isn’t a poor-country disease, like malaria, which ravages whole communities. It affects poor people disproportionately, as almost all problems do, but that’s as true of the worse-off in New York or New Orleans as it is in the Near East.

Roger Cohen wrote recently, “The world that emerges from this cannot resemble the old. If this plague that cares not a whit for the class or status of its victims cannot teach solidarity over individualistic excess, nothing will. If this continent-hopping pathogen cannot demonstrate the precarious interconnectedness of the planet, nothing will. Unlike 9/11, the assault is universal.”

A few days before non-essential businesses were closed in the U.K., I spoke with Trudy, a woman I’d met in a Lent group at church. Everybody, especially those aged over 70, sensed that “lockdown” was coming, but we still didn’t fully know what that was going to look like. I went to my hairdresser’s, which was empty, not knowing when I might get a haircut again. I bought a takeaway coffee from a shop that had already removed all its customer seating. Finally, I bought a Big Issue, sold in aid of homeless people, from our local vendor. The grocery store outside of which she typically plied her trade had given her a chair to sit on, as well as latex gloves. I had a chat with her and she smiled wide enough to show three gold teeth. I felt like I’d done my bit for local businesses.

The next day, the Big Issue took all its issues off the street. To protect its vendors, many of whom are homeless themselves; but where did they go? Will ours be back? 

I don’t know this woman’s story or if she is, herself, homeless. But I know that she is my neighbor, every bit as much as the hairdresser or the people who live on our road. 

There is a lot more to learn. I hope one of the things we remember is that a “good neighborhood” is not defined by real estate values, or who lives there, but by heart values and whether we take care of the people who are there. 

* The New York Times: “Amid pandemic, health care workers lose their jobs,” by Ellen Gabler, Zach Montague and Grace Ashford