How are Russians responding to the epidemic? Poll stories

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The coronavirus pandemic has become the main political phenomenon of our time. How to protect yourself from illness? What is more important: health or freedom? What is the value of human life? These questions are faced today by every inhabitant of Russia, and people answer them in different ways.

Disclaimer

Coronavirus: Between AIDS and Cancer

Coronavirus has almost become the main "medical" fear of Russians. Today it scares 60% of respondents and has bypassed other diseases, including AIDS (54%), cardiovascular diseases (50%) and tuberculosis (39%). So far, only oncology has not surrendered its positions to the coronavirus - 83% of respondents are afraid of getting cancer.

The level of fear of contracting coronavirus is almost halfway between "habitual" diseases and unpredictable oncology. Anyone - regardless of position, behavior, virtue, or medical adherence - can get cancer.

The clash of humanity with a new disease can be roughly divided into three stages: panic, war and everyday life.

As long as there is no understanding of the mechanism of infection - it does not matter, medical or mythical, the population panics, performs sporadic actions dictated by fear. For example, the first stages of the emergence of HIV, before understanding the mechanisms of infection and spread, were accompanied by waves of suicide, apocalyptic moods, and rampant crime. In psychology, this effect is called running amok - an act of uncontrollable aggression dictated by powerlessness, which is associated with a loss of control over the situation. A similar atmosphere reigned against the backdrop of many epidemics - from the mass extinction of the Mesoamerican Indians, ending with the first years of the emergence of AIDS.

The mechanisms of the spread of coronavirus have been studied, at least the population is sure of this - a huge number of articles and videos about the benefits / dangers of masks, tests, self-isolation, and so on. Therefore, oncology is still more frightening than coronavirus. Despite the fact that we are in the stage of the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic, cancer can happen to anyone, regardless of any physical or mental factors. And it scares more.

The majority of respondents are taking measures to combat infection: 82% wash their hands more often, 49% use public transport less, 40% use an antiseptic and 24% wear a mask. Only 9% refused to take any measures and perceive the situation as an ordinary phenomenon - everyday life has broken down.

Everyday life needs to be stabilized, and after a panic comes the military stage of coexistence with the disease - descriptions of the mechanism of infection and means of struggle appear. From the point of view of society, the effectiveness of measures does not matter, it is important that they are available. For example, completely mythical AIDS treatments have led to gay hunts, moral judgments, and lynching trials. Fighting disease does not diminish the degree of violence - it just institutionalizes it. Often times, the measures at this stage are much more brutal. This can be explained by several factors: since the disease proceeds in the logic of the conflict, victory in it is the ultimate goal, which makes it possible not to reckon with any victims at the level of the rights and freedoms of the population. In addition, the higher the degree of "seriousness" of the problem - publications in the media, expert comments, speeches by heads of state speaking about the importance and uniqueness of the current situation - the more the population is ready to sacrifice in the fight against it.

The population does not believe in an easy decision, as in the "War of the Worlds" by H. G. Wells, on the contrary, the more the screws are tightened, the more calmly the situation of the crisis is perceived

The coronavirus moves within the framework of this logic: the first stage was passed as quickly as possible, and literally in the first weeks of the epidemic, humanity entered a "war" with the disease. The seriousness of the situation is emphasized by almost every media and expert. Our survey data show that only 11% of respondents consider coronavirus a common disease and 19% are ready to talk about it as a natural phenomenon. Most often, the disease is perceived in terms of “a threat that challenges all of humanity and which must be fought” (44%), “biological weapons” (39%), or “a planned step by the political and economic elites of individual countries” (32%). It does not matter where the threat comes from - what is more important is the combination of ultimatum, extraordinary and militarized events.

That is why now exactly ⅔ of the respondents say that all efforts should be thrown into the fight against coronavirus, turning a blind eye to any possible social, economic and political consequences. Because when the enemy is at the gates and is already knocking on the doors of each separate self-isolated apartment, there is nothing more important than victory in the war. And the restoration of a peaceful life can be done after the victory - sometime later.

At some point, AIDS became a normal part of everyday life. For this to happen, it took a long cultural work, a lot of significant people who died from him and did not regret their illness, the refusal of moral condemnation of the sick, the manifestation of solidarity in one way or another

Illness has become commonplace, despite the danger. Coronavirus infection, on the other hand, is an extraordinary event, breaking order and requiring the most stringent measures to preserve social order, at least based on public perceptions. Perhaps, if it becomes a common seasonal phenomenon, after a few years it will be perceived as pneumonia, but for now humanity lives in the logic of total war.

Every man for himself or a war of all against all

So, if we are under martial law, do we have any allies? Who can you rely on in the fight against the new enemy? To the state? For medicine? The international community? Paradoxically, no: only 12% of those surveyed believe that medicine can be counted on to fight the epidemic. Only 9% count on the state (or rather, on the measures that it will take).

The majority - 40% - are sure that you can only rely on yourself. Almost the same number (37%) believe that the epidemic can be overcome only by collective action, if everyone adheres to the regime of self-isolation and does not infect others. At the end of Sunday, only 10% of those surveyed were not ready for voluntary self-isolation.

These opposing attitudes have a common basis. What are we most afraid of? Half of the respondents are afraid for their life and health, and ¾ - for the health of their relatives and friends.

Do we care about the health of others - those with whom we do not have close social relationships? As the data shows, no. Only 16% believe that the most important thing now is to prevent a large number of victims of the epidemic

Note that this is almost 2 times less than the number of those who say that the most important thing for them is to maintain social guarantees and stability of earnings (30%), and even those who are sure that in the current situation it is necessary to avoid a weakening of the economy and protracted economic crisis (18%).

What then means the confidence of 38% of the respondents that the epidemic can be defeated only by collective forces, if it is not associated with the goal of reducing the number of victims? The answer is simple: concerted collective action is needed primarily to ensure personal safety, which is threatened by the actions of others. That is why 32% believe that it is necessary to prevent mass infection.

At the moment, the most common scenario, according to the respondents, is associated with the effectiveness of quarantine measures. At the same time, most of the supporters of quarantine are precisely those who are sure that we need collective action.

Ultimately, they, just like people who rely on their own strength and actions in the fight against the epidemic, believe that everyone is for himself. The only difference is that some are confident that they can fence themselves off from the virus on their own, while others - that if concerted efforts are not made to confront the enemy (self-isolation and quarantine), victory and, accordingly, the elimination of the threat to themselves and their loved ones will not be achieved.

Is cooperation possible? To what extent do people who advocate collective action believe that it is possible? We are generally not ready to trust other - strangers - people. Therefore, we are not ready to rely on their responsibility, we are not ready to believe in their good faith, and we do not see any grounds that could compel them to act collectively. Paradoxically, only 40% of people who talk about collective responsibility in the fight against coronavirus believe that other people can be trusted. Exactly the same number as among those who argue that in a war you can rely only on yourself.

In a situation of mutual distrust, when everyone is for himself, compliance with the agreements is impossible. And at this moment we are ready to turn our eyes to the state again. The presence of a common established authority becomes a key condition for security for each individual.

“Indeed, natural laws (like justice, impartiality, modesty, mercy and (in general) behavior towards others as we would like them to act towards us) are by themselves, without fear of any the force that compels them to comply, contradict the natural passions that attract us to addiction, pride, revenge, etc. And agreements without a sword are just words that cannot guarantee a person's safety. That is why, despite the existence of natural laws (which each person follows when he wants to follow them, when he can do it without any danger to himself), everyone will and can quite legitimately use his physical strength and dexterity in order to protect himself from everyone other people if there is no established authority or authority strong enough to keep us safe."

Leviathan's Fresh Breath

It is important that this is not a request for the state, which carries out "pastoral management of people", thereby taking care of the safety of its population. Such a request would be characterized by the expectation of active actions from the state, which are aimed at combating the epidemic. But we remember that only 9% of the respondents count on this.

In conditions of active hostilities, the war against the epidemic, the demand for a state of a different type is clearly expressed - for the state of a social contract according to the model of T. Hobbes. It should become a third, external party that controls the implementation of agreements between people - on the observance of quarantine measures - while not being a party to the agreement itself.

“Such a common power that would be able to protect people from the invasion of strangers and from injustices inflicted on each other, and thus provide them with that security in which they could feed on the labors of their hands and from the fruits of the earth and live in contentment, can be erected only in one way, namely by concentrating all power and strength in one person or in a gathering of people, which, by a majority of votes, could bring all the wills of citizens into a single will."

The Hobbesian Leviathan must punish those who threaten the safety of others. Thus, ⅔ of the respondents are sure that for people violating the regime of (then) voluntary self-isolation, legal liability should be introduced - equally criminal or administrative. Half of them believe that street control should be exercised over violators of the self-isolation regime: 38% - by the police or the National Guard, and 12% - by detachments of vigilantes and volunteers.31% are in favor of regular police raids on homes to monitor compliance with the regime. 26% say they need to track people's movements using data from cellular operators. And 22% are sure of the need for street checkpoints to restrict transport movements.

As we remember, the creation of the Leviathan state is associated with the abandonment of natural rights in exchange for security. But in the face of a common enemy, security becomes more important than rights. 93% do not believe that the violation of citizens' rights during the fight against the epidemic is unacceptable. And only 8% are afraid of the strengthening of the state - that subsequently it will become more control over the daily life of citizens (for example, using the data of cellular operators to track movements in the city). The only thing people are hardly willing to give up in order to fight the epidemic is their usual income level (63%).

Other restrictions (freedom of movement, the use of urban spaces, the possibility of meeting friends and family) cause 2-2.5 times less anxiety

We are not virologists or epidemiologists. We're not even economists. Therefore, we cannot assess - and we do not assess - the effectiveness, timeliness and long-term consequences of the measures taken to combat the coronavirus. But the current situation gives us a unique opportunity to look at ourselves in the mirror.

And to see how fear and mutual distrust, unwillingness to cooperate, entail an inability to take collective action. How our perception of others leads to a situation where everyone speaks for himself in the face of a common enemy. And everyone's task is to save their own health and the health of their loved ones. Others are perceived not as comrades-in-arms with whom we are all in the same trench, but as a source of threat to our personal safety. And how, under these conditions, we appeal to the state, from which we do not expect concern for the population, but only the manifestation of strength, the ability to control and punish others who are dangerous to us. And it is not at all surprising that in these conditions - when the main stake is exclusively our own salvation - we are increasingly calling for protection from the Old Testament beast, which has no equal.