Monday 27 April 2020

The social psychology of the lockdown

They're baaack!  Not in the usual numbers, at least not yet, but tourists are starting to come back to our little town, despite the pleas from all levels of government for people to continue staying at home. The town has put up some big electric signs on the approach roads with alternating messages -- PLEASE STAY HOME, LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY and NO PUBLIC WASHROOMS.  It doesn't seem to be working, not least because once people have defied the lockdown and driven the 120 km or so from Toronto, they're not going to turn back a the last minute because they see a sign.

Back before any of these lockdowns even began, experts in the UK were saying that the longest period you cold reasonably expect people to be obedient and stay home was probably about twelve weeks. Here in Ontario we have had the stay home orders in place for only about half that time, and yet compliance is already starting to fray.  What can we make of this?

Many years ago, before we even met, my wife was involved in a bad car accident that left her with a broken femur. Initial attempts to set the bone failed, but a second surgeon was able to repair the damage, then warned her that she would be confined to hospital for.....twelve weeks.  As she recalls it, this was a daunting prospect, but it was also in some sense a light at the end of the tunnel, and she was able to deal with it. Why, she wonders -- we often discuss things like this over a bottle of wine on a Sunday evening -- can't the population at large do the same now?

I think the key difference is this. There could be no doubt in my wife's mind, all those years ago, that bed rest was for her own good, and that the personal consequences of disobeying the doctors could be dire.  For all the scary stories about the coronavirus, it is not easy to make everyone feel that way now.  I'm not ill myself, so why can't I go out for a little drive as long as I obey the social distancing rules?  Taking my family to the park, or down to Niagara for that matter, poses very little risk to others, so why shouldn't we go?  We're going stir crazy here!

And it's true -- one family walking past a string of empty shops poses very little risk -- but it's never  going to be just one family, is it?  There's a fallacy of composition at work here. Each individual family out for a stroll poses minimal danger, but when there are a whole lot of families with the same idea, the risk level increases dramatically,

This is not an easy argument to make to a populace that feels it is already making huge sacrifices for the good of others.  That's important to keep in mind as governments start to think about how we all come out of these lockdown phases.  If Governments sound too optimistic about the timetable for a return to "normal",  complacency will quickly set in and compliance with the lockdown will erode. If instead governments offer no light at the end of the tunnel, there will be at least a segment of the population that will throw up its hands and start disobeying the rules anyway.

Steering between these bad outcomes is a very tricky test for governments and not all of the early signs are promising. In the state of Georgia the Governor has seen fit to open up a ragtag set of businesses that should by all logic have been among the last things to reopen -- bowling alleys!  tattoo parlors! salons!  Mercifully it looks as if the population of the state may be smarter than its leader, so many businesses are staying shut and people are still staying home. 

For a counter-example we can look closer to home, to Toronto, where Mayor John Tory has announced that the city's largest outdoor space, High Park, will be completely closed so as to prevent crowds from gathering to see the cherry trees come in to bloom in the next week or two.  The cherry trees only occupy a small part of the park, but he's closing the whole, "out of an abundance of caution" as he would no doubt put it. 

Unfortunately for Mayor Tory, as the weather gets better, people are going to want to get outside anyway.  Closing off a huge park won't make then change their minds and stay inside -- they'll go somewhere else instead to get their fresh air fix. Who knows, some families deprived of the chance to see the blossoms in High Park might instead jump in the car and head somewhere else -- down to Niagara, perhaps?   

No comments: