Saturday, September 5, 2020

What’s in a Name? Could COVID-19 Be too Mild a Name to Gain Compliance with Preventive Approaches?


Why has it been so hard to get people to comply with simple protective approaches that reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus?  It is a simple matter to wear a mask outdoors and in shops.  It is simple to maintain a safe distance.  Yet go almost anywhere and you see someone with the mask below the nose or hanging below the chin.  Or someone who gets far too close to you.  People complain bitterly that these restrictions are trampling on their freedom. Freedom to infect others?

 

Part of the problem, of course, is due to the politicians, starting at the top, who have minimized risks from the beginning and encouraged people not to take any precautions.  But maybe the problem is partly due to the name, COVID-19 Pandemic.  The word “COVID” does not sound threatening.  It doesn’t carry any meaning.  Would a different name be more motivating for people to take precautions?

 

Looking back in history, plagues had more evocative names.  The Great Plague, also called the Black Death or Bubonic Plague, swept across Europe and Asia several times.  In the 14th century, the Great Plague wiped out between two thirds and three quarters of the population in parts of Europe.  Those names carry some heft to them.  Likewise, other illnesses that led to widespread infection and death had names that conveyed threat:  Small pox, typhus, typhoid, cholera, malaria.  Or more recent names—Ebola and Zika.  And of course, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV/AIDS).  They sound ominous.  Even “Spanish flu” sounds more serious than just ordinary influenza or H1N1 flu.  

 

And why call it a pandemic?  Plague is more dramatic.  It’s something people react to.  The term “plague” calls to mind all those apocalyptic paintings of victims from the 14th century and later plague outbreaks.  New York Times columnist Roger Cohen recently quoted Camus, who wrote that the plague “never goes away. It is waiting to exploit stupidity.”  That fits our response. 

 

What, then, should we call it that would better get attention?  President Trump started calling it the China Virus, which everyone saw as just another attempt to divert attention from his incompetence in letting the virus spread in the US, even as much of the world was implementing shutdowns and other efforts to control the virus. Such as wearing masks.

 

But it is not just that COVID-19 originated in China.  Viruses have regularly been making the jump from animals to humans in China.  The source is believed largely to be markets where wild animals are sold for food.  For years, the US and other countries have been talking with China about closing these markets, and there is some indication that they may be willing to do so. That would be an important step that could reduce the annual flu epidemic and prevent other novel viruses such as COVID-19.

 

To further that goal, we thought that COVID-19 should be re-named for one of its animal hosts, bats.  Bats are ugly.  We use their images for decorations for Halloween.  But Bat Virus is not strong enough.  Bats play an important role in eating mosquitoes in this country, and, after all, they are not responsible for the virus.  So we propose instead that COVID-19 be renamed the Bat Shit Plague.  There’s nothing nice or comfortable about that.  The bat isn’t being blamed directly.  And the name conveys how terrible the virus has been.  Maybe people unwilling to take precautions for COVID-19 will take steps to avoid the Bat Shit Plague. It’s a thought.

 

 

  

  

No comments:

Post a Comment