Тег: Harm Reduction

Harsh coercive measures have failed again

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Considering the concept of harm reduction, I have already shown why the best result is achieved not through prohibition and accusation, but through awareness and attempts to encourage a person toward less risky behavior. For example, the needle exchange program during the AIDS crisis in the 80s, which allowed drug users to take fewer risks by using fresh syringes instead of the same ones repeatedly and sharing them among several people, proved to be much more effective than strict prohibitions. Program participants began to use drugs less frequently, their health improved, and many of them eventually voluntarily sought help for addiction treatment.

Similarly, awareness and encouraging people toward less risky behavior could have been used instead of harsh coercive measures in the fight against coronavirus. Unfortunately, most governments chose the second method. However, it is good that not all of them decided to resort to force and strict prohibitions, so we can easily compare the results of these approaches. Research on the impact of strict measures, light measures, and all measures combined on the growth of infections has already long shown that both types of measures produce approximately the same effect. This means that the introduction of harsh coercive measures is unnecessary, or even harmful, given their consequences for social and economic life.

Sweden is a good example. From the very beginning of the pandemic, it refused to introduce harsh and coercive measures within its country; even the wearing of masks, which was mandatory almost worldwide, remained only recommendatory in Sweden. Initially, the number of infections and deaths greatly exceeded the corresponding figures in other countries (though in reality, this was not the case in all instances; for example, they were quite comparable to the figures in France). However, it was already clear then that compared to other countries, Sweden’s economy would suffer less and recover faster after the pandemic. And importantly, the last wave of the pandemic, which put many countries in a critical position, had almost no impact on Sweden. By the way, the inspiration for writing this post was the comparison between the situation in Israel, where people are already being given a third dose of the vaccine, where covid passports are being actively implemented, and where there were multiple lockdowns, and Sweden, where there is and was nothing of the sort. At the same time, in both countries, the vaccination level for the first and second doses is approximately the same, but the situation is fundamentally different.

Slightly stricter measures were introduced in other Scandinavian countries—Denmark and Norway. The governments of these countries, of course, called these measures extremely harsh, but if compared to measures in other countries, they also seem quite mild. It is also worth mentioning an experiment conducted in Norway. Fitness clubs were considered breeding grounds for coronavirus, so they were closed at first. Later, 5 clubs were opened, allowing half of their clients to attend classes and the other half not to. As a result, over two weeks of observation, only one case of illness was registered, although it was in the group attending fitness clubs, but the infected person had not even managed to reach the sports facility. Also, the director of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health claims that the country could have gotten by without quarantine and achieved the same results. In general, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have already lifted all restrictive measures (except for border controls) and were the first in Europe to return to the life they had before the pandemic. Other countries are still very far from this.

Thus, we are once again convinced that awareness and encouragement of less risky behavior can achieve at least the same, if not more, than strict prohibitions, control, and force. And in general, a huge price will have to be paid for harsh measures in any case. So what is the point if, in the end, they cause more harm than good?

Harm reduction instead of forceful coercion

Voluntarist, Bitarch

There are various ways to explain why forceful coercion is an ineffective, useless, or even harmful approach to achieving certain goals. We will examine one of them now. I was inspired to write this material by an article about an alternative, more effective method of fighting the coronavirus pandemic than the total ban on certain types of human interaction. You can read the full version of it via this link. I will provide a brief overview of it here.

In the fight against the pandemic, it is important to avoid social contacts. However, humans are beings who, in most cases, cannot fully do without them. Research shows that humans are strongly psychologically dependent on social contacts. And attempting to ban them will only lead to the fact that they will still occur, they will simply go underground.

The concept of “harm reduction” comes to our aid. Based on this concept, a much better result is achieved not through prohibition and blame, but through awareness and an attempt to encourage a person to make decisions that, while not completely eradicating risky behavior, will allow the associated harm to be reduced. This concept emerged during the AIDS crisis in the 1980s; it was implemented as a needle exchange program for drug addicts so that they would not risk contracting various infectious diseases by using one syringe for several people. Naturally, drug addicts were far more willing to engage in harm reduction than to submit to bans. Furthermore, the opportunity to choose harm reduction as opposed to harsh measures often encourages people to abandon risky behavior. This is confirmed even by statistical data in the case of drug addiction—the health of participants in needle exchange programs only improved; they were less likely to start taking drugs and more likely to seek treatment for addiction.

Another important concept called the “abstinence violation effect” tells us that harsh measures fundamentally do not work when getting rid of risky behavior, because a person stops perceiving failures adequately. For example, when a person tries to quit smoking by abruptly giving up cigarettes, a relapse will most likely lead them to think, “since I’ve already ruined everything, there’s no point in trying anymore,” and they will cease any further attempts to do so. A more effective strategy is a gradual withdrawal without the use of harsh measures and treating relapses as a normal phenomenon in the process of getting rid of a bad habit.

In the case of the coronavirus pandemic, governments decided to fight it specifically by introducing harsh measures and blaming people who do not comply with them. However, as we can already see, this does not solve the problem in any way. People see no point in submitting to such measures and giving up social contacts; on the contrary, they only hide their behavior and resist the measures being introduced. A more reasonable strategy in this case would have been harm reduction—that is, informing people about the risks of certain types of social contacts and promoting a competent approach to assessing these risks in various situations, rather than attempting to establish total bans. Then they would have been more inclined to follow measures that are useful in the fight against the pandemic.

In conclusion, by familiarizing ourselves with psychological concepts such as “harm reduction” and the “abstinence violation effect,” and by observing them in practice in cases such as drug addiction and the pandemic, we can conclude that forceful coercion—that is, harsh measures to implement certain types of behavior—cannot be an effective approach to achieving any goals; people will simply evade or resist. It would be far more effective not to pressure people, not to blame them for anything, and to give them the opportunity to freely choose less risky behavior as opposed to submitting to harsh measures.