Going hard on other killers
We have seen how Covid-19 can spread rapidly and overwhelm health systems even in wealthy countries, such as the United States. Those who are more prepared, such as countries in Asia that experienced other recent epidemics, have been more successful in limiting the spread of the virus. The worst outcomes are in countries where governments were slow to require actions such as physical distancing.
New Zealand’s Government heeded scientific advice and took strong action on this issue and others. This strategy has been successful in containing the disease, but it also has massive costs in terms of the economy.
This robust Government action is to be admired in terms of containing the disease. It raises the question as to why such strong action, with massive economic costs, has been taken for this disease when far less draconian action is taken to reduce the incidence of well-known major killers such as cancer and heart disease.
About 32,000 people die in New Zealand every year, many from heart disease and cancer, according to Statistics NZ. These diseases and the premature deaths they inflict are partly a reflection of lifestyle. And of course there are other hazards, such as vehicle crashes and earthquakes.
Could these other hazards and deaths also be reduced more by stronger government action? Sometimes this has happened, as in the ban on machineguns after the 2019 Christchurch massacre, taxes on cigarettes, and tighter legislation on earthquake-prone buildings.
But with other hazards and illnesses, preventive action is less evident. For example, there is strong evidence that added sugar (as in soft drinks) leads to diseases, tooth decay and premature deaths. Despite this evidence, these drinks and foods are not banned (except in some hospitals) or heavily taxed; yet they make up a regular part of the diets of thousands if not millions of New Zealanders.
Countries that have introduced modest taxes on these drinks have seen a reduction in sales. Currently we are getting frequent messages telling us what actions to take to fight Covid-19. But there’s nothing telling us to drink water rather than sugar drinks.
Stronger action on the controllable causes of killer diseases would not incur the massive cost to the economy of the Government actions against Covid-19. The same applies with other hazards.
This raises the question of whether the strong Government response to the pandemic is disproportionate to the risk. Some academics have argued that this is the case; however, their arguments have been rejected by Dr Siouxsie Wiles (in Spinoff) and others.
But it is important to apply the same principles to different hazards, not just Covid-19. Why do we have this more interventionist treatment of Covid19? One person with an infectious disease can lead to many others being infected, and possibly dying.
Many other hazards don’t have this infectious quality – one person drinking a sugary drink doesn’t lead to many others being harmed.
So infectious diseases differ from many hazards. Note, however, that one engineer’s sloppy design of a large building may cause the deaths of many others in an earthquake. The same apples to a pilot making a risky decision in bad weather.
But the different treatment of various hazards also reflects our psychology. Research shows that people perceive greater risk in hazards with vivid media coverage, such as murders, and those that harm a large number of people at once, such as plane crashes and earthquakes. By contrast, we are less anxious about illnesses such as stroke that harm and kill many more people but are scattered through the population and over time.
It is important that citizens’ and governments’ response to different hazards reflects the best research on the likely outcomes of the different hazards we face, and the costs resulting from government interventions to reduce harm.