Covid-19 and the power of rules

Abstract

This article discusses the role of human-created rules in our collective adapting to Covid-19 and our survival in its wake. Rules that make sense become institutionalised and play a dual role in our response to the pandemic: they provide a guide for individual behavior and they provide a mechanism for coordinating all our behaviors.

This short paper examines the role played by rules and institutions in our collective response to Covid-19. The paper takes a personal experience of the author in institutionalising a new rule and reflects on this in the light of institutional and game theory. The paper suggests that our continued success in managing the pandemic will depend on our ability to create institutions that make sense and are collectively adopted. The paper queries the long-run viability of the distancing rule.

In the last week of May 2020, during phase one of Ireland’s relaxation of the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, I met my daughter for the first time in over two months. We met out of doors in the middle of the Phoenix park in Dublin city.We didn’t hug or touch each other and kept apart for the entire time that we were together. I had anticipated that this was the way it was going to be and I had expected it to be a very strange experience, indeed part of me had been dreading it. The bond between father and daughter is very strong.1 Overcoming the natural human tendency to be physically close2 was going to be difficult. That we kept apart demonstrates the power of rules within human society. While this story is mine, this power of rules to force people apart currently applies to people all over the globe: grandchildren are being kept away from grandparents, siblings from each other, parents from their adult children, friends are keeping apart, and people generally are staying away from each other in the streets, in the shops, in the parks.

We met outdoors and kept two meters apart because this was the behaviour specified by the authorities.3 However, there was another consideration. Not only did the rules overcome our natural human tendency they also overcame our reasoning. Let me explain. When I met my daughter in the first week after lockdown I knew almost for sure that I did not have the virus: I had met no one outside of my immediate household for ten weeks, well over the specified 14 days required to be clear of the virus, and at no stage during this period had I displayed any symptoms of Covid-19. Similarly, my daughter was almost certainly free of the virus given the long lockdown period and her absence of symptoms. This was the most certain that either of us could be that we were both virus-free. It was therefore highly unlikely that had we hugged we would have transmitted the virus to each other. And yet we stayed apart. Why was this so? It was not because of enforcement of the guidelines by the authorities: there were no Gardaí4 nearby. It was not because of social or peer pressure: we were far away from other people. It was because we believed that the rules made sense.5

The rules made sense because our meeting together was not likely to be a once-off event; we each anticipated that it would be repeated. We also each anticipated that we would meet up with many other people – friends, family, colleagues—during the future phases of relaxation of restrictions. We could each reason that, over time, we would meet up with more and more people, each of whom in turn would have met up with more and more people. The network of interconnections with people will increase exponentially over time, and therefore there is a possibility that eventually one of us will meet up with someone who has the virus and in turn pass it on to the other, and by extension to that person’s entire household. If we all will have kept our distance throughout this entire series of meetings, then there is a lower likelihood that the virus will be transmitted. However, if fewer and fewer of us will have kept our distance, then there is increasing risk of the virus propagating at some future point in time. It is therefore in all our interests to maintain our distance until the virus is extinguished. This process of thinking forward and reasoning backwards6 led us both, at our first meeting, to stay apart. The same logic applies to all meetings between myself and anyone else from any other household for the foreseeable future. Indeed, the same logic applies to all meetings between people from different households for the foreseeable future.

This is a very strong rule. While it may stave off immediate disaster it will have great, even potentially catastrophic, consequences for individuals and for society should it apply in its absolute form for an extended period of time. Application of the rule may lead in time to the extinguishing of the virus, but in the short run it has led to drastic curtailment of economic, social and cultural life on earth. Development of an effective and widely-available vaccine7 against coronavirus may lead to the rule becoming redundant. Extinguishing of the virus through distancing or other human devices may lead to the rule becoming redundant. But, should the virus remain and the distancing rule be applied indefinitely, the logical conclusion is that no new households could form. The species itself would come under threat: we are threatened by the virus, but also potentially by the remedy. It is therefore likely that at some point in the future the distancing rule will in practice be modified from its absolute form.8 We will likely see a merging of extant cultural, social, sexual and economic practices with the new Covid-19 institutions. What these will look like in the long run we do not know but we have some indications from changes that have already taken place: football being played in empty stadia to TV audiences, aggregated online musical performances, avoidance of public transport, queues outside shops, increasing levels of online purchasing with postal delivery, homes becoming offices, offices becoming empty, a return to walking and cycling for leisure and for transport, a rediscovery of local attractions. Even if Covid-19 disappears some of these new, or rediscovered old, institutions will likely remain.

There are a number of reasons why as a population we have largely to date kept the new Covid-19 rules. The rules have power if they make sense9 to us individually: we will then use them to guide our personal behaviour. The rules have power if they make sense to us collectively: we will adopt them to coordinate our interactions and mitigate social awkwardness. As they continue to make sense to us individually and collectively they will gradually become institutionalised,10 becoming part of our normal behaviour. The new rules will combine with existing cultural, social, economic, educational and health institutions to form new routines that in time will themselves become institutionalised.11

The rules also have power if we are coerced into following them through fear or force. We obeyed the rules during the lockdown for fear of rampant spreading of the virus and the consequences of that on human life in general and on the hospital system in particular. The spectre of Italy haunted our collective psyche.12 Enforcement of the rules by the authorities has to date played only a small role in Ireland (although this has not been so in all countries; and indeed in Ireland the rules may be more strictly enforced at some time in the future should the authorities deem it necessary13). During the lockdown people accepted the importance of isolation of households and individuals. During the gradual relaxation of the restrictions people have largely accepted the importance of social distancing and restrictions on travel. Where guidance has been ambiguous, as for example regarding the use of masks, adoption has been less complete. Where guidance is clear but has been challenged, as for example the two-meter specification for social distance, adoption has become less precise over time.

The virus is still with us and is still contagious. What has changed is our collective behaviour. Routines such as distancing and isolation that were alien to us in March have become institutionalised by June. We will draw on these institutions—some hierarchically imposed, some spontaneously developed, some resurrected, some not yet created—to guide our individual behaviour and to coordinate our collective activity into the future. However, two questions arise, one general and one more specific: how do we ensure that the rules continue to make sense to us in the complex and continually changing context of Covid-19? and how do we deal with the tensions inherent in maintaining the social distance rule in the short run—when we may feel buoyant and relatively safe—while staving off a resurgence of the virus in the medium term,14 and at the same time preserving what we can of our educational, economic, social and cultural heritage for the longer run?15

Epilogue: Our meeting together post-lockdown turned out to be an enjoyable and positive occasion. Father and daughter spent thirty minutes in each other’s company catching up on nearly three months of elapsed time during which much of consequence had taken place. It was clear that, although the rules forced us to keep apart, they also provided a protocol that we were able to use to interact safely with each other.16 The awkwardness17 that I dreaded beforehand did not arise. We were actively developing a new norm of human behaviour. We do not yet know how long this new norm will last. Perhaps it will be gone by the end of August18; perhaps we will all live with the concept of social distancing for years to come.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The author has no conflict of interests in respect of this article.