THERE'S AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

I want to make clear up front that I do not intend by the following remarks to promote or defend any particular position in the context of the current pandemic crisis.  Instead, I just wanted to point out an important factor that underlies the debate over what our proper course of action should be but that seems to be stated only indirectly or not stated at all.

The expression “Elephant in the room” refers to the idea that there is a major problem or controversial issue that is obviously present but that is avoided as a subject for discussion because it is more comfortable to do so.

We are in the throes of a national debate over the rules that should be in place to best balance, on one side, the need to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus and, on the other, the need to reopen the economy to get people back to work and to reduce the hardship of those who have lost their source of income. This is an entirely legitimate policy debate, and there are defensible arguments on both sides of the question of where to draw the line between the competing interests.  This debate should not be politicized.  The fact that it has been is unfortunate because that obscures the legitimate policy issues and arguments.  But that is not what I want to address here.

No, what I want to point out here is that this debate revolves around an issue that no one on either side seems to want to address directly.  That issue is the question of the value of individual human life.  It’s an ugly question, but there it is.  It’s the elephant in the room.

All the aspects of stay at home measures, social distancing, the closing down of restaurants, bars, and large gatherings such as sporting events and concerts, and the closing of nonessential businesses are intended to reduce “the spread of the virus.” But this term is, generally speaking, simply a euphemism for deaths (as well as for the serious health issues in those cases that are nonfatal).  

Every time there is a loosening of restrictions—the opening of public beaches, exercise gyms, tattoo parlors, hair salons—the understood consequence is an increase in the spread of the virus.  That is how we refer to it, but what we are really talking about is an increase in the number of deaths. That’s what the epidemiological science tells us, and no one legitimately disputes that. But the underlying question is how we make that decision, knowing that loosening such restrictions will result in a higher figure for the number of fatalities, both near term and long term.  

Part of the way we deal with this imponderable is by making the statistic impersonal.  As long as we believe that neither we personally nor our family or friends are included in that statistic, we can look at it dispassionately.  But if it becomes personal, as it does for those directly affected, including those medical and first-responder personnel working on the front line, the calculus seems to change. 

This pandemic crisis is not the only instance where the question of the value of human life can be and is at issue.  We could, for example, reduce automobile fatalities substantially by reducing speed limits on our freeways to, say, 30 mph.  The fact that we have set speed limits at 70 or 75 mph is a tacit admission that we are willing to accept a higher death rate in that situation.  

On the other hand, we could limit our efforts to save lives through extraordinary and expensive procedures.  I am reminded of the rescue of a youth soccer team from a flooded cave in Thailand two summers ago. I think we all felt a great sense of relief when the team was rescued, despite the fact that the operation required enormous resources.  This is a particularly sensitive issue where those same financial resources might have saved many more lives if they were redirected to other efforts, such as providing lifesaving resources—food and medical supplies—to poverty-stricken areas.  

These are not comfortable matters to discuss, and there is no obvious right answer.  But I believe that confronting directly the metaphorical elephant in the room might be a way more honestly to clarify and resolve the issues that this pandemic crisis has forced us to address.

© 2020 John M. Phillips