OPINION - The COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath: Understanding the shock of the pandemic

By Gerard Delanty

- The author is an Emeritus Professor of Sociology at Sussex University. He is the Editor of "Pandemics, Society and Politics: Critical Reflections on COVID-19 Pandemic" (De Gruyter, 2021). He is currently completing a book titled, "Senses of the Future."

ISTANBUL (AA) - The COVID-19 pandemic was without doubt a major shock. As an officially declared pandemic that is not itself surprising. But how should we understand the shock of the pandemic? As a health shock, it was significant with a total death toll, according to World Health Organization (WHO), of more than 767,000 in the past two years. It is certainly of greater consequence than most of the other zoonotic "New Infectious Diseases" that emerged since the 1990s, and also more significant than influenza with which it is often compared. While for many countries in the developed world, it was one of the main causes of death, malaria is still the greatest killer for much of the world.

From a sociological perspective, as opposed to a strictly epidemiological view, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that despite the severe health impact, the wider impact on the state and society may be greater in terms of its long-term implications. The fundamental problem that the pandemic created for the state was how to balance the need for protection without unreasonable restrictions on liberty. The responsibilities of the state include providing for security and protecting liberty. Democracies have generally worked out a way to get this balance right. This is what the pandemic challenged and there were many failures in governance. A response by the state was needed, but what kind of a response was appropriate? How should we assess the significance of the pandemic? I see three main issues.

- What was different about COVID-19 as an epidemic/pandemic?

It was the first global epidemic to the extent that almost all world regions were affected. In that respect, the pandemic marked an end to Western exceptionality in that the apparent conquest of major infectious diseases since the 1950s as a result of vaccination programs, sanitation, and other health regulations came to an end, as the pandemic hit Western countries with considerable force.

While there was huge variability worldwide in state responses, there were also considerable common experiences everywhere. It was a global event in terms of the effects of quarantine, mask-wearing, social distancing, travel bans, and so on. For close to a year people almost everywhere had pretty much the same everyday experiences. This included the considerable negative secondary consequences of quarantine, which have led to a range of other health problems and the disastrous impact of loss of income for many people.

The pandemic is also significant in that it was the first data-driven control of the disease. Almost immediately, huge amounts of data were produced and experts became increasingly dominant, leading to fears of ‘expertocracy’ – rule by experts – with governments in thrall to the often contradictory and arbitrary prognoses of experts. It is not all a negative story: It led to an astonishing and unprecedented advancement in scientific knowledge and the rapid production of effective vaccines.

Due to the prevalence of scientific knowledge, there was also the outcome that everyone became an ‘expert’, a phenomenon that fueled anti-vaccine conspiracy theories leading to exploitation by the radical right that sought to associate measures to control the pandemic with attacks on freedom, which they could champion while the left had no option but to defend restrictions on liberty.

- What kind of long-term change did it lead to?

A pandemic in itself does not lead directly to long-term change, as opposed to short-term change such as less travel. This depends on how societies respond to it. It can lead to an acceleration of change that is already underway, as in technological changes that are now clearly an outcome such as more working from home, a range of new apps, and so on. There has been a general intensification of digitalization, which is also linked to an undoubted increase in securitization and thus of state surveillance over the individual.

However, societies do not change as a whole and change may be only for some people, for example, more opportunities for working from home for middle-class occupations but for others, for example, those working in home deliveries, ever greater precarious working conditions will be the result. In so far as a general assessment is possible, it appears that inequality has increased since the pandemic. The World Bank has estimated that some 11 million people have been pushed into poverty as a result of the pandemic. It is certainly the case that it did not lead to a decrease and much has remained the same.

For a pandemic to lead to major long-term societal change, whether good or bad, it would have to intersect with other critical moments, for example, the climate crisis, the crisis in liberal democracy and the rise of authoritarianism, economic crisis. In these examples, there are several tipping points. However, it remains inconclusive what the long-term outcome is. For now, it seems COVID-19 has become "normalized" and the crisis did not lead to the collapse of liberal democracy. It could perhaps be seen as a potentially dangerous experiment with emergency government as a permanent feature of the state today.

- What have we learnt from the pandemic?

The pandemic revealed the fragility and vulnerability of society to pathogens. If the first victim of a pandemic is society, democracy is the second. But, it is now clear that democracy is also essential for coping with pandemics. The initial reaction and still the main one is that the democratic constitutional state is ill-equipped to deal with pandemics. Authoritarian states, such as China with its zero-COVID policy, were at first very effective in controlling the pandemic since they did not have to worry about restrictions on liberty.

But there is an important difference between short-term and long-term control. It seems to be the case that democracies are more successful in long-term control of pandemics, as is clear from the situation in China once its zero-COVID policy failed. Democracies are pulled in different directions by the need to protect liberty and provide security, which includes protection from infectious diseases. Resolving this tension is critical for the future and this can only be done through public deliberation rather than rule by experts or excessive securitization and secrecy.

It is now clear that a pandemic is entangled in almost every aspect of society and as a result, it is not easy to separate the health issue from a vast range of social, political, and economic processes. Since the lockdown was also a shutdown, it unleashed all kinds of unintended effects.

In view of the likelihood of more pandemics, coming from as yet-unknown viruses, liberal democracies will need to learn how to respond to such events rather than waiting for them to happen. Finally, a pandemic is by definition global so it cannot be controlled nationally except for short periods of time. This means that there is a vital need for greater global cooperation. But with the world drifting towards increased authoritarianism that will be difficult.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu.