Are we psychologically prepared for the coronavirus outbreak?

From travel restrictions to forced isolation, the new coronavirus brings psychological threats, too.

Travelers at an airport wearing facemasks
Don Arnold / Getty
  • The novel coronavirus has spread to all continents except Antarctica, and it's infected more than 90,000 people as of early March.
  • In China, mental health officials are trying to keep up with thousands of service requests from doctors and civilians facing fear, anxiety and exhaustion.
  • It's unclear how Americans will react if the outbreak intensifies.


Scientists have a decent understanding of how the novel coronavirus affects the body. But what's less clear is how the outbreak — its death toll, what governments do to control it, etc. — will affect peoples' psyche.

The situation in China provides clues: For weeks, millions of people across dozens of cities have been living under lockdown conditions, with many unable to travel, go out in public, or in some cases, leave their housing complex. Many have been isolated in mandatory quarantines. China's President Xi Jinping told citizens: "Staying indoors is your contribution to the Party and the Country."

But for people in Wuhan, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak, these containment measures seem to be taking a psychological toll. Psychiatrists, psychologists, and counselors have been responding to a "surge" of service requests from doctors and civilians in the city, most of whom are dealing with panic, fear of infection, or financial stress, according to the Wall Street Journal.

How will Amercians respond, psychologically, if the outbreak intensifies? It's a sobering question to consider, especially in light of estimates that 40 to 70 percent of the world's population might become infected. In other words, we might soon enter a scenario where most of us know someone who dies from coronavirus, as The New York Times reported last week.

So, when gauging how Americans will react psychologically, it's worth looking at how the Chinese are responding, and then factoring in cultural and political differences between Americans and the Chinese. For example: Americans might be more psychologically sensitive to the outbreak and its political ramifications, considering:

  • The Chinese are, presumably, more experienced with viral outbreaks; they suffered the brunt of the 2002 SARS epidemic.
  • The Chinese are also more accustomed to the government exercising top-down control; Americans would likely respond more disagreeably to being told they can't book a cross-country flight.
people walking in quarantine suits from Diamond Princess cruise shipDiamond Princess Cruise Ship Remains Quarantined As Coronavirus Cases Grow

Carl Court / Getty

However, it wouldn't be the first time the U.S. government compromised citizens' individual liberties to control the outbreak of a contagious disease. In response to the 1918 Spanish Flu, for example, officials in some U.S. states banned public gatherings, forcibly isolated and quarantined the ill, and closed public schools for weeks at a time. This was the last time the government exercised large-scale quarantine and isolation measures.

In recent weeks, Americans have undergone mandatory quarantine at the nation's borders, where the federal government's protective powers are most clearly defined. On March 3, more than 100 Americans who had been passengers aboard a Diamond Princess cruise ship were released after spending two weeks in quarantine. Americans who recently returned home from China have also had to undergo quarantine.

Although the federal government is within its power to isolate and quarantine at-risk citizens, some civil rights activists say these measures violate individual liberty.

"Quarantining somebody is an extraordinary deprivation of their liberties," American Civil Liberties Union senior policy analyst Jay Stanley told CNBC. "There's a burden on the government to determine that it's really using the least restrictive alternative."

Coronavirus illustration

Coronavirus illustration

Courtesy CDC/Alissa Eckert

Beyond political implications, quarantining people may yield negative psychological effects. In a recent episode of the American Psychological Association's "Speaking Psychology" podcast, host Kaitlin Luna cited research on people who were quarantined during the SARS epidemic.

"They found that many had psychological distress including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression," she said. They found that the longer someone was quarantined, the higher likelihood that he or she would experience PTSD symptoms. Obviously, this shows that being isolated from others can bring up a host of negative feelings."

But what about the millions of Americans who will never be quarantined or become infected? How will they respond psychologically? The advice from most health professionals seems to be: start preparing yourself.

"The most important recommendation is don't panic, but prepare," Dr. Rebecca Katz, director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University, told Vox. "We're not going into a crazy movie situation where the world is on fire, but we may be going into a situation where there are people walking around who are sick."

The 'adjustment reaction'

Part of mentally preparing yourself involves understanding what some crisis communicators and psychiatrists call the "adjustment reaction." This phenomenon describes how people typically react to a new and potentially serious risk, like coronavirus. For example, people tend to: pause, become over-vigilant, personalize the risk, and take extra precautions.

The adjustment reaction isn't necessarily a negative or naive response to crisis. Rather, it seems to help people cope, and to prevent overreactions down the road.

"The 'adjustment reaction' is a step that is hard to skip on the way to the new normal," risk communications experts Jody Lanard and Peter Sandman wrote in a blog post about coronavirus. "Going through it before a crisis is full-blown is more conducive to resilience, coping, and rational response than going through it mid-crisis."

A new study says it's okay to eat red meat. An immediate uproar follows.

Even before publication, health agencies were asking the journal not to publish the research.

Photo by Isa Terli/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Surprising Science
  • A new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine found little correlation between red meat consumption and health problems.
  • A number of organizations immediately contested the evidence, claiming it to be based on an irrelevant system of analysis.
  • Beef and dairy production is one of the leading drivers of climate change, forcing humans to weigh personal health against the environment.
Keep reading Show less

CRISPR therapy cures first genetic disorder inside the body

It marks a breakthrough in using gene editing to treat diseases.

Credit: National Cancer Institute via Unsplash
Technology & Innovation

This article was originally published by our sister site, Freethink.

For the first time, researchers appear to have effectively treated a genetic disorder by directly injecting a CRISPR therapy into patients' bloodstreams — overcoming one of the biggest hurdles to curing diseases with the gene editing technology.

The therapy appears to be astonishingly effective, editing nearly every cell in the liver to stop a disease-causing mutation.

The challenge: CRISPR gives us the ability to correct genetic mutations, and given that such mutations are responsible for more than 6,000 human diseases, the tech has the potential to dramatically improve human health.

One way to use CRISPR to treat diseases is to remove affected cells from a patient, edit out the mutation in the lab, and place the cells back in the body to replicate — that's how one team functionally cured people with the blood disorder sickle cell anemia, editing and then infusing bone marrow cells.

Bone marrow is a special case, though, and many mutations cause disease in organs that are harder to fix.

Another option is to insert the CRISPR system itself into the body so that it can make edits directly in the affected organs (that's only been attempted once, in an ongoing study in which people had a CRISPR therapy injected into their eyes to treat a rare vision disorder).

Injecting a CRISPR therapy right into the bloodstream has been a problem, though, because the therapy has to find the right cells to edit. An inherited mutation will be in the DNA of every cell of your body, but if it only causes disease in the liver, you don't want your therapy being used up in the pancreas or kidneys.

A new CRISPR therapy: Now, researchers from Intellia Therapeutics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals have demonstrated for the first time that a CRISPR therapy delivered into the bloodstream can travel to desired tissues to make edits.

We can overcome one of the biggest challenges with applying CRISPR clinically.

—JENNIFER DOUDNA

"This is a major milestone for patients," Jennifer Doudna, co-developer of CRISPR, who wasn't involved in the trial, told NPR.

"While these are early data, they show us that we can overcome one of the biggest challenges with applying CRISPR clinically so far, which is being able to deliver it systemically and get it to the right place," she continued.

What they did: During a phase 1 clinical trial, Intellia researchers injected a CRISPR therapy dubbed NTLA-2001 into the bloodstreams of six people with a rare, potentially fatal genetic disorder called transthyretin amyloidosis.

The livers of people with transthyretin amyloidosis produce a destructive protein, and the CRISPR therapy was designed to target the gene that makes the protein and halt its production. After just one injection of NTLA-2001, the three patients given a higher dose saw their levels of the protein drop by 80% to 96%.

A better option: The CRISPR therapy produced only mild adverse effects and did lower the protein levels, but we don't know yet if the effect will be permanent. It'll also be a few months before we know if the therapy can alleviate the symptoms of transthyretin amyloidosis.

This is a wonderful day for the future of gene-editing as a medicine.

—FYODOR URNOV

If everything goes as hoped, though, NTLA-2001 could one day offer a better treatment option for transthyretin amyloidosis than a currently approved medication, patisiran, which only reduces toxic protein levels by 81% and must be injected regularly.

Looking ahead: Even more exciting than NTLA-2001's potential impact on transthyretin amyloidosis, though, is the knowledge that we may be able to use CRISPR injections to treat other genetic disorders that are difficult to target directly, such as heart or brain diseases.

"This is a wonderful day for the future of gene-editing as a medicine," Fyodor Urnov, a UC Berkeley professor of genetics, who wasn't involved in the trial, told NPR. "We as a species are watching this remarkable new show called: our gene-edited future."

UFOs: US intelligence report finds no aliens but plenty of unidentified flying objects

A new government report describes 144 sightings of unidentified aerial phenomena.

Photo by Albert Antony on Unsplash
Surprising Science

On June 25, 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a much-anticipated report on UFOs to Congress.

Keep reading Show less
Quantcast