The Power of Social Conformity and Its Role in COVID-19 Transmission Prevention

By Robin G. Jordan

The US Constitution does not recognize a right to do as we please, to jeopardize the health and safety of others, and to endanger their lives. Indeed such a right would be a major infringement upon the rights of others. But the possession of such a right is what those who refuse to wear a face mask and to comply with other precautionary measures such as social distancing have been claiming.

Regrettably the president and administration officials have through their words and actions been reinforcing this view. The president declines to wear a face mask in public. His spokesperson maintains that wearing a face mask is a matter of personal choice, essentially saying that Americans are free to disregard the health and safety of their fellow Americans if they want to. Search as you may, you will not find any right to spread a highly infectious disease and cause the serious illness and death of others enshrined in the US Constitution.

What the president and administration officials are doing are encouraging irresponsibility and recklessness on the part of the American public. They are contributing to the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus. Their words and actions border on reckless endangerment.

“Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.” Reckless Endangerment Law and legal Definition

Reckless endangerment laws vary from state to state. They typically include provisions for the prosecution of parents and caregivers who through negligence fail to protect the health, safety, and well-being of a child in their care. They also include provisions for the prosecution of the employees of hospitals , skilled nursing care facilities, assisted living facilities, and long-term care facilities who likewise through negligence fail to protect the health, safety, and well-being of their patients or residents. State-licensed nurseries and daycare facilities generally fall under the provisions of state reckless endangerment laws.

The argument that the president and administration officials are entitled to their opinions is a flimsy one when their opinions influence many people and their attitude toward the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for precautionary measures to slow the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus and to reduce the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. It would not hold much weight as a defense in a reckless endangerment case in which the testimony of experts is given far greater weight in determining negligence and guilt.

According to the latest reports the United States is seeing surges in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in a number of states. Increased testing does not account for these surges. The relaxation of state and local restrictions appears to be a contributing factor as states and counties reopen. Laxity in the enforcement of remaining public health measures appears to be another factor. A third factor appears to be the attitude of many Americans toward the COVID-19 pandemic and the state and local public health measures for the suppression or mitigation of the pandemic.

I am not going to speculate on the reasons that the president and administration officials are taking the position on the COVID-19 pandemic that they are taking. One finds online dozens and dozens of media articles and videos, Youtube videos, and blog and social media platform posts expressing a range of views on the subject. However, the example the president is setting for the American public and the message he and administration officials are conveying to the American public are not the right things to do in the midst of a serious pandemic.

I was involved in mental health and child welfare work for the State of Louisiana for more than twenty-five years. During that time I learned one thing. Politicians and public officials, federal, state, and local, could play one of two roles in addressing problems that affected the health, safety, and well-being of the public. They could be a great help or a serious hindrance. They could be a part of the problem or they could be a part of the solution. Depending on how serious the problem was determined how great a help or hindrance they could be.

One thing that I find really lacking right now is a nation-wide effort to educate the public on the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic and the importance of the implementation of precautionary measures and the application of the principle of “layers of intervention” in their implementation. While such an effort might not persuade everyone of the pandemic’s seriousness and the importance of precautionary measures and their proper implementation, it would establish a national standard against which the actions of those dismissing the seriousness of the pandemic and the importance of such measures and their proper implantation could be judged. It would help to mobilize public opinion against such individuals.

For example, rather than being viewed as manly for not wearing a face mask, a man who refuses to wear one might be viewed as unmanly for jeopardizing the health and safety of others and endanger their lives. Those who argue that wearing a face mask is a matter of personal choice would be viewed as turning their backs on the health and safety of others and causing needless suffering and death.

During World War II the public was encouraged to make all kinds of sacrifices for the war effort. Those who did not pull their weight in the war effort were viewed as slackers and malingerers. They were shirking their duty to their country and even unwittingly conspiring with the enemy for its defeat. They experienced considerable social pressure to conform. They were not hailed as heroes and their defiance of what became the country’s norms was not celebrated.

I am not advocating the suppression of the freedom of speech. But I am advocating the mobilizing of public opinion in support of COVID-19 transmission prevention. As long as they are experiencing no social pressure to conform, those who are flouting precautionary measures essential to slowing and even arresting the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus will persist in what from the perspective of preventing the transmission of the virus and reducing the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths is anti-social behavior. The mobilization of social pressure from the community is more likely to discourage such behavior than laws prohibiting it and fines and other penalties for violation of these laws.

While his drinking buddies at the tavern may applaud him, an individual who repeatedly flouts these measures would find himself the object of growing disapproval of other members of the community, including his boss, his co-workers, his wife, his children, his neighbors, his pastor, and his church. Except at the tavern, he would find himself a social pariah in the community. This is one of the ways that US communities responded to those who were not contributing a fair share in the eyes of the community to the war effort in World War II.

Mobilizing public opinion in support of efforts to remedy community problems is an effective method of addressing these problems. It puts pressure on politicians, public officials, and other key individuals to become a part of the solution, and not remain a part of the problem. At a minimum they will not oppose needed change.

Churches can play an important role in influencing public opinion in a community. They can refuse to buy into the various forms of COVID-19 denial. They can play a lead role in a grassroots movement to educate the public on the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic and the importance of the implementation of precautionary measures and the application of the principle of “layers of intervention” in their implementation. They can urge the federal government to make greater efforts to educate the public at the national level and monitor its efforts and their effectiveness. They can draw attention to weaknesses and commend strengths. They can also network with other organizations for this purpose.

I do not believe that the United States is going to see a lasting reduction in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths until most Americans are genuinely on board in the efforts to slow the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus and to reduce the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Correspondingly those who are not supportive of these efforts are viewed for what they are—someone who is likely to needlessly expose themselves and those who come into contact with them to the virus. This perspective may not sit well with some readers. However, we are in the midst of a serious pandemic and we should no lose sight of that fact. The COVID-19 coronavirus is not going away any time soon. If we are going to hold ground in our battle against the virus, we need to adopt approaches to slowing its spread and reducing the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, which have proven to work and are backed up by scientific research. Whether we like or not, they will require changing the way we live, work, do business, and practice our religion. We have entered the COVID-19 era. The pre-COVID-19 era is a thing of the past. There is no going back!