Epidemics stoke enormous fears

Malte Thießen of the Westphalia-Lippe Regional Association (LWL) explains:

Why are infectious diseases such as the coronavirus a seismograph of society?

The novel coronavirus “SARS-CoV-2” continues to spread in Austria and Germany as well. More and more protective measures are being taken. Cancelled events, closed schools, nurseries and museums, panic buying in supermarkets: public life is increasingly grinding to a halt. Unease among the population is growing. In this interview, Prof. Dr. Malte Thießen, historian and head of the LWL Institute for Westphalian Regional History, explains where the fear of epidemics comes from, what historical examples there are and why epidemics are a seismograph of society.

Professor Thießen, what is society’s fear of epidemics based on? Epidemics are the most social of all diseases: they stoke enormous fears because they can strike anyone. Fellow human beings suddenly mutate into threats, while family and friends become defenceless victims. The epidemic is always the others. In the current pandemic, the fears are all the greater because the virus is new. New diseases always seem more threatening than familiar ones. The comparison with seasonal influenza that is so common at the moment is an example of this. Cynical as it may sound, we have basically learnt to live with the deaths caused by flu – even though there are vaccinations against it.

Why is the fear of the coronavirus in particular so great? The novelty also encourages the spread of speculation and conspiracy theories, which quickly “go viral” in the digital age. People want to make sense of the unknown in order to feel safe and be able to plan their lives – an entirely natural process. Unfortunately, in doing so we sometimes fall back on stereotypes and interpretations that have little to do with the medical situation and more to do with our view of the world. Worries about migrants or “fringe groups”, about profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies, about an all-powerful or a helpless state feed these fears. Such fears can then be just as dangerous as the epidemic itself, as the current panic buying of sterilising agents and face masks shows.

What historical examples of epidemic outbreaks are there? References to the plague pandemics of the 1340s or to the Spanish flu of 1918/19 are particularly popular at the moment. But this list of horrors can easily be continued into more recent times. Polio and diphtheria claimed thousands of victims, above all among children, until the 1960s. As late as the 1970s, smallpox was repeatedly brought into the Federal Republic of Germany, and the outbreak of AIDS/HIV in the 1980s in turn claimed countless lives.

What can we learn from this history for the present? The history of epidemics makes the dangers of stereotypes visible. During the plague epidemics, for example, the Jewish inhabitants of towns were targeted again and again. They were ostracised as bringers of the plague and even murdered. But it would be too simple to reduce such exclusion to the “dark Middle Ages”. The ostracism of gay men in the 1980s, when AIDS made headlines as a “gay plague”, is no less chilling an example of the very real threats that stereotypes pose. So we should be careful with hasty attributions and stereotypes, and remind ourselves that people can still react in a thoroughly medieval way today.

Which control strategies were the focus then, and which are now? How should politicians respond? Isolation and quarantine have been the most popular means of fighting epidemics for centuries. Entire towns and regions were sealed off as early as the plague waves. From a historical perspective, however, this strategy also has its difficulties. Even for the 13th and 14th centuries we find evidence that sections of the population bought their way out of isolation, or that flows of goods and people were not consistently controlled. In the modern era, the success of isolation and quarantine measures is more questionable than ever. Even in China, which is often praised as a model today for its rigid measures against corona, the isolation measures came too late in the view of many virologists. Rapid isolation of outbreaks that are clearly confined locally obviously makes sense. In the global age, however, such clearly confined outbreaks are a rare exception.

Photo: LWL/Nolte

Are there other control strategies, then? More sensible political measures are therefore proactive public information and the strengthening of health-policy structures. We all have to fight a pandemic together. The success of epidemic control depends very largely on our everyday behaviour. For that we need to be well informed and know what we can do. Strengthening health-policy structures is of course important at all times, but especially in times of epidemic.

In your academic studies you describe “epidemics as a seismograph of society”. How social is the current handling of the coronavirus? I do indeed consider epidemics to be a seismograph of society that makes its tremors visible. Epidemics are a stress test for society. They expose social cohesion, rifts and conflicts. At the moment, this stress test leaves a mixed impression: on the one hand, crude conspiracy theories, agitation against minorities as sources of infection, and the panic buying of medical supplies are signs that social cohesion is at risk. On the other hand, especially among neighbours and in our immediate surroundings, we see many forms of solidarity and responsible behaviour that should give us courage and serve as an example: shopping for elderly people next door, supporting nurses and doctors, or the prudent self-isolation of people who may be ill perhaps show after all that we have learnt from the history of epidemics.