On April 20, a group of ICU Healthcare workers in Phoenix counter-protested people demanding Arizona’s governor reopen the state. In the face of verbal assault and bluster from the protestors, the nurses wearing scrubs and respiratory masks stood silently with arms crossed, making a strong statement against prematurely exposing people to COVID-19. Since then the photo has gone viral.
Reminiscent of iconic protest photos like the 1963 Birmingham police dog attack or the 1989 Tiananmen Square Tank Man, the image captures the tension and stark divide between the sides.
As the debate about reopening plays out, it raises many important questions. What does society need to ensure a return to some level of normalcy? What will the New Normal look like? Who will decide it?
It also presents many risk tolerance perspectives:
- Public Health and Safety vs. Economic Concerns
- Public Good vs. Personal Interests
- Long-Term vs. the Short Term
- Facts and Data vs. Speculative Opinions
- Follow Guidelines vs. Ignore or Skirt the Guidelines
- Work and be Protected vs. Work and be Infected
The president has downplayed the medical, social, and economic effects from COVID-19. He stated, “relaxing social distancing is a good thing”. Then he deferred to the States to determine when reopening would take place, further fanning the debate.
The protesters calling for reopening cited individual freedoms, guaranteed by the constitution. This is not a surprising stance. No one would argue that it is an inalienable right for people to catch COVID-19. However, it is another matter if failing to adequately protect oneself leads to other people becoming infected too.
Regardless of what health experts, politicians or TV news speculate, the New Normal will largely be determined by individual behaviors – influenced by their own unique risk tolerances. Risk tolerance is the willingness to accept a range of risk, above or below an established risk reality – such as contracting COVID-19. On the low side, risk tolerance is actively avoiding contracting COVID-19. On the high side, it might be accepting symptoms, illness and even death as possible outcomes.
The Phoenix ICU workers acted from a perspective of low risk tolerance, likely from their respective experiences treating COVID-19 patients and families. Isolating and protecting oneself reduces the likelihood of infection, infecting others, and potentially lethal outcomes. Lauren Leander, the Phoenix ICU Nurse said, “I just want to be the voice for my patients and urge the people to stay at home for the safety of themselves and their families”.
Banner University Medical Center ICU nurse Lauren Leander stands in counter-protest as people march toward the Arizona State Capitol in protest of Gov. Doug Ducey’s stay-at-home order to combat the coronavirus April 20, 2020. (Photo: Michael Chow/The Republic)
The protestors exhibit a high level of risk tolerance. They defied the recommended practice of social distancing and wearing masks in public. In their view, potential adverse outcomes do not outweigh their constitutional liberties. Individual freedoms and concerns supersede community safety. However, there were a few in-betweens. A protester was photographed carrying a sign “Freedom to: Live, Die and Catch COVID-19”. She was wearing a mask.
Individual perceptions are defined by knowledge, information, personal belief systems and peer networks. These factors frame our beliefs and influence our decision-making. As the debate intensifies, each side dismisses the other, claiming their choices are made from ignorance, dubious data, or alternative facts.
Will this reopening debate end in a compromise with no winners? Will substantially more people fall victim to COVID-19 because others are not personally distancing or using personal protective equipment guidelines?
If the polarities seen in the Phoenix protest are representative, they imply many people in the US will not be compliant with Covid-19 guidelines. If so, higher risk may become a part of daily life. With the ongoing risk of infection, the New Normal may continue or intensify the protocols we see today until there is an effective vaccine. Only after the entire population is inoculated will there be any chance of returning to a pre-COVID-19 normal. Until then, government and businesses should continue to protect their critical resources, employees and customers.
People are the prime input for commerce. It will be imperative that they assume a low risk tolerance to ensure their livelihood. Most large employers will likely mandate a low tolerance practice for all employees, until there is a significant change in the levels of infection risk to COVID – 19. Those who choose to defy safety protocols may be constitutionally righteous, they may also be fired.
Public health, facts & data, the long view and collective responsibility must trump the politicization of the pandemic.
Bio Stephen Villaescusa CERM
With more than 35 years of experience in operational excellence and change management, Stephen Villaescusa has a proven ability in assessing an organization’s needs and collaborating with key stakeholders to develop and manage transformation efforts. He had led or administered many multi-year, global engagements across a variety of industry sectors, including high-tech, manufacturing, finance, government, aerospace, food services, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, retail and service.
From executives to team members, Stephen has trained and coached at all levels His expertise spans Enterprise Risk Management, Lean methods and tools, Six Sigma methodologies (process improvement and new product development), Rapid Improvement events, Voice of the Customer(VOC) and Change Management.
A creative, energetic and collaborative thinker, Stephen sees himself as a bridge for organizations, helping them go from where they are to where they want to be.
Stephen holds a Bachelor’s of Science in Business Administration from the University of Arizona. He has also completed graduate certifications at the UCLA Anderson School of Management and the Columbia Business School at Columbia University.
Email: stephenvillaescusa@outlook.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/
Bio Steven Bradt CERM, CPHQ, MHA
Steven has more than 20 years of experience in Continuous Process Improvement (Lean, TQM, Six Sigma) change management, and risk. Steven’s is a servant leader, seeking to optimize systems, building high reliability and resilient organizations. His experience spans, automotive, retail, financial, customer service, energy, state, and federal governments, and his passion is to improve healthcare systems.
Stevens’ foundational approach is to develop collaboratives across organizational divides to overcome silo mentality with key stakeholders. Part of the transformational process is building competencies and capabilities within the organization through education. Steven has taught at all levels of the organization, designed and delivered bespoke education tailored to fit the needs of the organization.
Steven is a Certified Enterprise Risk Manager (CERM), Certified Professional of Healthcare Quality (CPHQ), holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was a Fellow at Manchester Business School in the United Kingdom and received His Masters of Health Administration (MHA) from George Washington University in Washington D.C. Currently, he is developing an executive Quality, Leadership, and Safety course for The Milkin School of Public Health at GWU.
You can reach Steven at either email addresses: scbradt@gwu.edu and sbradt@optimize-consulting.biz