
Decision-making over social distancing is taking a toll on our mental health - bryanrasmussen
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/corona-exhausted-moral-fatigue-974311/
======
dusted
I'm enjoying it, I like working from home and I prefer to interact with people
in text or voice calls over face to face. I wish society would adapt to this
and get better infrastructure for things like shopping in my area so I
literally never had to leave the house to interact with another human. I like
watching TV shows with my best friend on a discord session, we just press play
at the same time.

It's like, finally the rest of society has to abide to how I want things to
be, I'm glad that I don't have to say "sorry, got a cold so not shaking hands"
anymore, because now we just don't do that, it was gross to begin with, why
would I want to touch some strangers hands?

The economy breaking down from this, well, that's not only a bad thing, the
economy was broken to begin with, in the best case, this forces us to rethink
the systems.

~~~
djsumdog
And the hundreds of thousands dead around the world?

~~~
mushbino
The article and the response above are about the mental toll of social
distancing.

~~~
dusted
Yes, indeed, and I think the article fails to take into account that while
some have a difficult time coping with this, others are doing better than
normal.

------
TopHand
I think the mental toll for what is going on right now is going to appear
laughable in the months to come. No matter which way we jump there are going
to be ugly consequences. A huge part of not examining the problems and trying
to come up with the best solutions is that it is being made into a political
debate on whose policies were and should be followed. We at where we're at.
What we should be looking at is what is the best way out. We need to triage
the situation by deciding what we want the future to look like.

Do we want our children to grow up with the education and employment
opportunities that they had six months ago, or do we want to completely
minimize the loss of life?

The people most at risk are people with compromised cardiovascular systems and
compromised respiratory systems. I also understand that obese people are at
high risk. You can conclude that the way these people became compromised is
through lifestyle choices. They chose to smoke, drink, and over indulge in
food for many years. I'm sorry the bill has become due. But I don't think my
children should have to pay the price for their choices.

I know a lot of readers are going to be saying that the greatest at risk group
are people over 65. I'm in this group. It is my personal opinion that I would
rather my grandchildren grow up with high potential than to prolong my life
another few years. In reality I'm not truly concerned because I'm relatively
healthy for my age group because of the choices I have made.

~~~
kian
Do you really think that all people with cardiovascular and respiratory issues
are 'paying the price for their choices'? I guess asthma sufferers (such as
the nurse who ran marathons but had exercise-induced asthma who died
recently), people with congenital heart issues, and immunocompromised patients
and those with auto-immune disorders all just should have chosen not to be
born with their respective illnesses? And tsk tsk for all of those foolish
people currently on cancer treatment - don't they know that cancer is easy to
avoid because we know every cause? Even if you believe that the majority of
people with these conditions are at fault - just be clear that the people who
'caused this to themselves' will not be the only ones who suffer.

\-- edited to remove an uncharitable reading and response --

~~~
TopHand
Yes there are those who suffer through no consequence of their own. But they
are in the minority. I'm guessing that the majority of people with these
compromises have been smoking, drinking and made poor lifestyle choices. I
didn't feel I needed to write a complete essay covering every possible case.
Yes there are innocent victims. But again, the majority are probably from
lifestyle choices.

I was not arguing to be allowed to wonder the streets. I was arguing that
there are consequences to every direction we turn and that we need to consider
what kind of future we want in the following decades. This will eventually
end. What do we want life to look like when it ends?

Just for your info, I live a fairly isolated life on a working ranch. My wife
and I can go as long as a month without seeing another human being. My
lifestyle has not changed all that much other than the fact that at the base
level of the food supply, I can see that shortages are coming. Most living
Americans have not lived through food shortages. The big political question of
the coming years may not be how do we distribute the wealth, but how do we
ease the hunger!

~~~
kian
I apologize for the uncharitable reading and response. I have a number of
friends with immune disorders and heart issues through no fault of their own,
and I was too hasty in my response. It is true that all of the decisions to be
made going forward are unpalatable. Sadly, I don't think that any of the ones
that are least likely to hurt us in the long run will be chosen. Stay safe out
there.

------
tyingq
I think the mental toll is more complex than that. This situation changes a
lot of things. One example is many couples that used to have regular time
apart are now together almost 24x7. One of many things that are different now.

~~~
djsumdog
And those of us who went into this disaster single and without kids have been
separated from nearly everyone, and have absolutely no hope of that ending
anytime soon.

~~~
hobs
Not a huge fan of them, but my dating apps have been pretty buzzy because all
of the people staying inside.

There's plenty of bored single people in the same boat as far as I can tell.

------
lnsru
I will be not popular here, but I have no problems with this so called social
distancing (as it is in Germany). The local newsletters write at lest 3
articles daily how bad it is. But it isn’t bad at all! One may open the door
and can have a walk. One can drive to the woods and still have a walk. Phones
and internet are working fine. It’s not that families of 4 would be locked
down in 25 square meters flats for months. Perhaps it’s my subjective
perspective: I was homeless and broken decade ago, but now have supportive
wife, side project with bright perspective, still employed and with full
fridge.

~~~
kayodelycaon
Some of us need social interaction to be healthy and live alone. Walking in
the woods only does so much.

~~~
lnsru
That’s right, but in Germany you could go to the woods with somebody and it
still would be totally fine.

Edit: fellow salesmen still thrive during pandemic on the phone. Looks like
their luxury cars and weekly meetings at the client’s location are not needed
at the end. These were extreme extroverts talking without a break.

------
motohagiography
Moral fatigue in the article is very much a thing, but moreso for people
living together. As someone who fits into what I call the "untroubled loner"
category, I'm the source of zoom respite for a lot of people stuck together,
which takes energy for me, but nothing compared to what it means to a
relationship where suddenly you need to be emotionally present and "on," all
the time when previously you didn't. I'm regularly in touch with about 30
people in different places via zoom, slack, etc, and the impact could be
described on a Pareto distribution.

Too much mental health concern and sympathy bothers me a bit because it can be
a social license to behave terribly, and the self-care narrative can seem like
an enabler instead of a mitigation for a crisis. I'm advising friends to
remember how abnormal this is. Their normal might not come back, but being
just a bit more charitable with each other as they adapt can turn a
relationship breaker into a deeper level of trust. Marriages and family are
wealth, and right now they aren't earning interest or returns from the
outside. Some people are starting to spend and draw down their emotional
capital by being needy or subconsciously giving in to conflict for the
excitement. If you lacked personal boundaries going into this, it's going to
be hard when they necessarily build up just to stay sane in confinement, so
being charitable about that mental space is key.

All I can say is the best way through this will be to exercise, read the
stoics, and work on mastering something. This too shall pass.

------
aaron695
> Decision-making over social distancing is taking a toll on our mental health

This is a really good article.

I'm more a fan on the real title "The Reason You’re Exhausted Is ‘Moral
Fatigue’"

Handling ‘Moral Fatigue’ effects R0. If it becomes to much people will give
up, which ends lockdowns early and it reduces productivity and short term
happiness.

With the Moral Fatigue comes adventure though, it's like a foreign holiday,
stressful, but we understand the reward.

The real "toll on our mental health" will be the joblessness and health budget
cuts for the coming years, not Moral Fatigue.

------
djsumdog
COVID-19 is two diseases. One is the obvious one that is killing thousands of
people, where their own body is breaking down and fighting against them.

The second is the disease where society, in an attempt to fight the disease,
could end up deeply hurting itself:

[https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/covid-19-is-two-
disease...](https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/covid-19-is-two-diseases/)

------
sheeshkebab
This bull shit of social distancing... what are people thinking that they
won’t get the virus by staying away for a while? There are close to 20m newly
unemployed people that could give a shit about it. There will be risks of
riots soon if this goes on. And in the end we’ll get worst of both ends.

~~~
Gollapalli
I'm not sure it's fair to say that it's just social distancing, but you're
absolutely right that economic effects have a potential to destroy this
country. (writing from the US)

52% of people under the age of 45 have been laid off, put on leave, or had
hours reduced. Putting the people with young families, or who would have been
looking to start families in dire straits is a great recipe for high crime and
social unrest.

~~~
danaris
Something like this can only "destroy the country" if the government lets it.

We have the ability to keep essential workers safe with proper protective gear
and guarantee both food and shelter to all for the duration—we just have to
decide that we value human life and dignity more than money.

~~~
sethammons
I don’t think we have demonstrated the ability to provide protective gear nor
can we guarantee food and shelter. We couldn’t keep toilet paper on shelves
and nobody could get proper masks.

~~~
danaris
Well, toilet paper is not "essential protective gear."

That said, my point is mainly that _if the government were responding
effectively_ , we could have had production shifting to ensure proper supplies
in _January_. That could have included toilet paper, too, though I suppose
it's possible that even an effective government wouldn't have foreseen that
particular oddity of the crisis.

As it stands, our government is hamstrung by the fact that its chief executive
cares exactly zero for the wellbeing of the country except inasmuch as it
makes him feel like he'll have better chances of winning re-election.

~~~
sethammons
> if the government were responsible effectively

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen any part of the government respond effectively to
anything, to the point of it being an oxymoron. I also fail to believe that
the president has much power over anything related. In a state of emergency,
the president can get more powers. I am unaware of any that would help. He can
imprison, disable services, turn off the Internet, sanction, all sticks and no
carrots. I think our president is an ass, but I think it is silly to think “if
but for him, our government wouldn’t be hamstrung.”

Edit: clarification on my first post: I was not claiming toilet paper as
protective or emergency supplies, but as an example that even trifling things
can’t be secured. Let alone things that are actually important such as masks
or food.

~~~
danaris
Well, first of all, I disagree vehemently with your premise (that government,
as a concept, is incapable of responding effectively to a crisis). But that's
another discussion for another day.

As far as specific powers the President has, there's one that's already been
talked about quite a bit—the Defense Production Act. As I understand it, this
grants the power to compel manufacturing companies to retool to produce what's
needed in a time of crisis, and to take control of logistics to see them
routed in an efficient manner to where they are most needed. As a matter of
fact, Trump has already used this to order GM to produce ventilators (I think?
maybe it was masks?).

As far as the logistics side goes, though, he's been using it solely to punish
states whose governors don't lick his boots and reward those who do (eg,
seizing shipments of protective equipment arriving at the port in NYC, sending
them to FL instead).

