A second lockdown will be much harder than the first.
That’s because of a psychological quirk behavioural economists call the endowment effect, a cognitive bias related to the broader concept of loss aversion.
In essence, people value things they have been given or purchased far more than things of similar value that belong to others or are sitting on the shelf.
Repeated experiments in behavioural economics — the intersection between economics and psychology — have confirmed this bias.
When restrictions were eased, governments gave people a gift: the freedom to mingle. It is much more valuable now than similar freedoms we had before COVID-19 — freedoms we took for granted, we never thought of them as something given to us.
So returning to lockdown is not as simple as saying “you did it once before, so you can do it again”.
The second time takes away something we value. People will react to this loss with correspondingly greater negativity.
A likely consequence is that this time round, as confirmed by a recent Griffith University survey, compliance will be less prevalent.
People will have to be forced. There will be confrontation and arrests. Behind the scenes there will be evasion.
Police can take enforcement action against obvious breaches. The government has a near monopoly on the use of force to deliver its policies.
But disgruntled people suffering loss will find inventive and surreptitious ways to break the rules without being caught.
Loss aversion won’t apply with everyone — some people will be indifferent. But many people, probably a majority, will perceive themselves as losing a valuable good (their freedom to move and mingle) recently gifted by the government.
For a second lockdown to work this perception needs to be countered directly. It means doing it completely differently the second time around.
It’s not too late for other states to learn from Victoria. If the spread of COVID-19 means other states or territories have to reinstate greater distancing and/or quarantining, the second time can be managed so it feels less like taking back a gift.
Various measures that might help include: much more testing, in a friendly and non-coercive manner; positive incentives for people who isolate (for example, free pay TV subscriptions, loaner TVs for people who don’t have them, cheap phone plans, free food, masks); group bubbles rather than single dwellings where at least people would have company.
An option worth considering in small and close-knit neighborhoods is safe zones — the opposite of hot spots — where everyone inside the zone is tested and declared virus free, to encourage people in those zones to isolate for themselves. That is, encourage social norms rather than using armed force as a lockdown measure.
Going back to old lockdown approaches has a further negative impact — it diminishes public confidence in the pandemic response.
There are already signs of declining trust. Norman Swan, at first one of the strongest supporters of chief medical officers, has begun to question them over their reluctance to support masks as a preventive measure.
Media outlets that once had a united front in support of each and every lockdown measure are increasingly likely to ask questions.
A second lockdown is not the first lockdown on rewind. The behavioural economics research tells us that people will react differently. To keep our trust, governments and their medical advisers need to show they understand this evidence and are adjusting their responses.
Do you feel differently about the second Melbourne lockdown to the first? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say section.
The fact remains that we are still all in this together. The virus is as infectious as ever and irresponsible behaviour on the part of a few can have disastrous consequences for all.
If you visit the ABC website today you’ll find a report on a study from the UK that shows that a key differentiator of those nations that were successful in the first CoVid wave was their sense of communal solidarity (https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/covid-19-coronavirus-solidarity-leadership-lockdown-lessons/12440372).
This study reflects what most of us would expect intuitively. We were all pleasantly surprised at the way our federal and state governments managed to put their differences aside for the common good in complete contrast to previous behaviour, while events in the US clearly demonstrate the failure that comes when leaders try and maximise personal political advantage by sowing division amongst their constituents.
The media plays a critical role in maintaining this sense of solidarity. The actions of Fox News in the US over the course of the pandemic and, similarly, News Corp’s various Australian outlets, have in my opinion been nothing short of criminal. I believe that in the US, they have been indirectly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people.
Unfortunately, the articles that Crikey has run over the past few days also seem to be showing an increased propensity for criticism of government actions. It may well be that these criticisms are warranted, but a strong emphasis on negativity also eats away at the social solidarity that is our chief weapon in the fight against the virus.
I know that Crikey values its standing as a source of hard-hitting journalism. I also know that you’ve been running a determined campaign to increase subscriptions lately. I’m just one subscriber and I don’t expect my voice to count for much, but can I respectfully request that your editors and journalists reconsider the direction you are taking with your reporting of the pandemic’s progress? At the very least, if you feel it essential to public interest that particular government failings need to be highlighted or exposed, try and balance those reports with something positive. You are a moral, responsible and professional news organisation and you have set a high bar for yourselves. Please don’t let us down.
Thank you for this comment. I second it.
Yes thanks for this thoughtful comment
Agreed.
Agreed
Me too.
Well said Graeski. Excellent points.
Yes
And ninthed by me!
Yes, yes, yes!
I agree too, this article begins on a fairly flimsy premise – that people will feel their freedom is a product[something bought,owned and paid for] taken away again by government.
Graeski’s point that communities look out for each other and therefore offer something valuable is quite possibly frightening for media organisations so used to marketing formulas.
The fires created a similar environment and marketing strategies getting on board to sell their products often look disingenuous.
Federal and state governments are on a steep learning curve and it’s refreshing to see that they do know the difference between peoples lives and the economy.
The depressing lockdown-open up-lockdown yo-yo is inevitable, unless we bite the elimination bullet. Even then there are no guarantees, but NZ did it (in just over 10 weeks), as have a number of Australian states + territories.
And with so-called ‘herd immunity’ looking less and less likely for a whole range of reasons – including the fact that an effective vaccine is a long way off (if, in fact, it’s ever developed), low levels of protective antibodies in populations that had high infection rates (Spain, Sweden), and no long term protection for those with antibodies – it seems like a no-brainer to me.
What does behavioural economics tell us about how we’re likely to cope with the third, fourth, fifth, sixth etc lockdown?
I think we will have to get used to returns to lockdowns over the next few years. I hope we will all get used to it and also create a routine for how to be in and out of lockdown. Or, they could re-introduce quarantine stations and take people out of the community until they have recovered (not sure how that will go down though.) No easy answers. Elimination is only possible if you never open borders until a vaccine arrives. If there is no vaccine, there needs to be really good treatment options. Or the virus wanes in severity. There are no known good options right now, just less bad ones.
What does behavioural economics tell us ? That the little mammalian talking primate is running out of places to run, & knowing about it is catching up.
What it tells us is “shut up, consume & die” but many are now learning the better lesson which you suggest.
It’s a complete no brainer to me that elimination will never, ever work for long. I am absolutely certain that sooner or later, NZ will have cases again too. Maybe you can close borders for holiday makers without too much trouble, but you can not hermetically seal them for everything and everyone.
We buy and sell stuff, and that stuff is transported by people – are you going to do away with all imports and exports? And before you’re telling me that that’s just money and the economy is more important than people: just consider that Australia, for example, imports 90% of our pharmaceuticals, at the end of a very long global supply chain.
There are Australian citizens who are currently not in Australia – are you going to permanently strip them of their right to return home?
There will always be *some* border crossings – North Korea has border crossings! And as long as there are border crossings, the virus can come in again and undo the elimination. What then? We have to find a way to live with this beast. That will likely require a mix of different strategies – greatly reduced border traffic, greatly reduced public gatherings, greatly increased hospital capacity, and probably at some point even: accepting some increase in deaths. Trying to rely on only one of those but in an extreme version, is bound to do more harm than good.
Crikey can you follow up on the Covidsafe appy thingo in light of this latest outbreak? Is Vic Health accessing it and has it proven to be of any use whatsoever?? I and am sure others are genuinely interested in its effectiveness or lack thereof!
They did one on Wednesday that covers Victoria’s use of it: https://uat.crikey.com.au/2020/07/08/covidsafe-app-problems/
The evil offspring when money mates with academia – “behavioural economics — the intersection between economics and psychology”.
The way to insanity as we know humans are not rational beings!
Not sure what you mean by that.
Behavioural economics is a breath of fresh air – debunking the concept that people are rational and, faced with all relevant information will make rational decisions that maximise their individual benefits.
As a non-economist who worked in public policy for around a quarter of a centuary, I can’t tell you how many times I had to say “But people just don’t act like that,” only to see bad decisions being made on false assumptions about how people would respond.
I am wondering if more people will actually take the second lock-down more seriously. During the first lockdown when numbers went down quite fast, were we hopeful that we’d done our time and knocked it on the head? There was pressure from the Federal Government fairly early on for all states to open up as fast as possible and state leaders were keen to be able to let us all out again.
However now we know we really have to take this thing seriously and that really we are in for the long haul. I noticed around my suburb that people relaxed when we were allowed to but as the numbers crept up again and even before Melbourne was locked down again, people started being more cautious again.
Well said JMNO..
But unfortunately, where I live, just down the road from a tourist spot on Wednesday there was no social distancing when half the world rocked up to get their last coffee, tea & or special treat, whatever before the lock down kicked in..
For some people the message about the social distancing thing doesn’t seem to be sinking in, with the biggest increase in cases over night, we’ve seen in Victoria to date, I do hope this reality is starting to come home to roost for those who have insisted on not complying to the requests of the government, health authority’s & the larger majority of Victorians, also for those of us who are immune-compromised, who don’t have the same capacity to defend themselves..