Untouchability is a form of social institution that
legitimises and enforces practices that are discriminatory, humiliating,
exclusionary and exploitative against people belonging to certain
social groups. Although comparable forms of discrimination are found all
over the world, untouchability involving the caste system is largely unique to South Asia.
The term is most commonly associated with treatment of the Dalit communities in the Indian subcontinent who were considered "polluting". The term has also been used to refer to other groups, including the Burakumin of Japan, the Baekjeong of Korea, and the Ragyabpa of Tibet, as well as the Romani people and Cagot in Europe, and the Al-Akhdam in Yemen.Traditionally, the groups characterized as untouchable were those whose
occupations and habits of life involved ritually "polluting"
activities, such as pursuing a career based on killing (e.g. fishermen)
or engaging in common contact with others' feces or sweat (e.g. manual scavengers, sweepers and washermen).
Due to many caste-based discriminations in Nepal, the government of Nepal legally abolished the caste-system and criminalized any caste-based discrimination, including "untouchability" in 1963.
Untouchability has been outlawed in India, Nepal and Pakistan. However, "untouchability" has not been legally defined.
The origin of untouchability and its historicity are still debated. A
2020 study of a sample of households in India concludes that
"Notwithstanding the likelihood of under-reporting of the practice of
untouchability, 70 percent of the population reported not indulging in
this practice. This is an encouraging sign."
Origin
B. R. Ambedkar,
an Indian social reformer and politician who came from a social group
that was considered untouchable, theorized that untouchability
originated because of the deliberate policy of the Brahmins. According to him, the Brahmanas despised the people who gave up the Brahmanism in favour of Buddhism. Later scholars such as Vivekanand Jha have refuted this theory.
Nripendra Kumar Dutt, a professor of history, theorized that the concept of untouchability originated from the "pariah"-like treatment accorded to the indigenous people of India by the early Dravidians, and that the concept was borrowed by the Indo-Aryans from the Dravidians. Scholars such as R. S. Sharma
have rejected this theory, arguing that there is no evidence that
Dravidians practised untouchability before coming into contact with the
Indo-Aryans.
Austrian ethnologist Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf theorized that untouchability originated as class stratification in urban areas of the Indus Valley civilisation. According to this theory, the poorer workers involved in 'unclean' occupations such as sweeping or leather work
were historically segregated and banished outside the city limits. Over
time, personal cleanliness came to be identified with "purity", and the
concept of untouchability eventually spread to rural areas as well.
After the decline of the Indus Valley towns, these untouchables probably
spread to other parts of India. Scholars such as Suvira Jaiswal
reject this theory, arguing that it lacks evidence, and does not
explain why the concept of untouchability is more pronounced in rural
areas.
American scholar George L. Hart, based on his interpretation of Old Tamil texts such as Purananuru, traced the origin of untouchability to ancient Tamil
society. According to him, in this society, certain occupational groups
were thought to be involved in controlling the malevolent supernatural
forces; as an example, Hart mentions the Paraiyars,
who played the drums during battles and solemn events such as births
and deaths. People from these occupational groups came to be avoided by
others, who believed that they were "dangerous and had the power to
pollute the others".
Jaiswal dismisses the evidence produced by Hart as "extremely weak" and
contradictory. Jaiswal points out that the authors of the ancient Tamil
texts included several Brahmanas (a fact accepted by Hart); thus, the
society described in these texts was already under Brahmanical influence, and could have borrowed the concept of untouchability from them.
British anthropologist John Henry Hutton
traced the origin of untouchability to the taboo on accepting food
cooked by a person from a different caste. This taboo presumably
originated because of cleanliness concerns, and ultimately, led to other
prejudices such as the taboo on marrying outside one's caste. Jaiswal
argues that this theory cannot explain how various social groups were
isolated as untouchable or accorded a social rank.
Jaiswal also notes that several passages from the ancient Vedic texts
indicate that there was no taboo against accepting food from people
belonging to a different varna or tribe. For example, some Shrauta Sutras mandate that a performer of the Vishvajit sacrifice must live with the Nishadas (a tribe regarded as untouchable in later period) for three days, in their village, and eat their food.
Scholars such as Suvira Jaiswal, R. S. Sharma, and Vivekanand Jha
characterize untouchability as a relatively later development after the
establishment of the varna and caste system. Jha notes that the earliest Vedic text Rigveda makes no mention of untouchability, and even the later Vedic texts, which revile certain groups such as the Chandalas,
do not suggest that untouchability existed in the contemporary society.
According to Jha, in the later period, several groups began to be
characterized as untouchable, a development which reached its peak
during 600–1200 AD. Sharma theorizes that institution of untouchability
arose when the aboriginal tribes with "low material culture" and
"uncertain means of livelihood" came to be regarded as impure by the
privileged classes who despised manual labour, and regarded associated
impurity with "certain material objects".
According to Jaiswal, when the members of aboriginal groups were
assimilated into the Brahmanical society, the privileged among them may
have tried to assert their higher status by disassociating themselves
from their lower-status counterparts, who were gradually branded as
untouchables.
According to the Dharmashastras
which are ancient legal codes from various kingdoms in ancient India,
certain peoples grouped either by ethnicity or profession were not
considered a part of the varna based society. Therefore, they were not treated like the savarnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras).
Characteristics
According to Sarah Pinto, an anthropologist, modern untouchability in India applies to people whose work relates to "meat, and bodily fluids".
Based on the punishments prescribed in The Untouchability (Offences)
Act, 1955 the following practices could be understood to have been
associated with Untouchability in India:
Prohibition from eating with other members
Provision of separate cups in village tea stalls
Separate seating arrangements and utensils in restaurants
Segregation in seating and food arrangements at village functions and festivals
Prohibition from entering places of public worship
Prohibition from wearing sandals or holding umbrellas in front of higher caste members
Prohibition from entering other caste homes
Prohibition from using common village paths
Separate burial/cremation grounds
Prohibition from accessing common/public properties and resources (wells, ponds, temples, etc.)
Segregation (separate seating area) of children in schools
Social boycotts by other castes for refusing to perform their "duties"
Government action in India
India is home to over 200 million Dalits. At the time of Indian independence, Dalit activists began calling for separate electorates
for untouchables in India to allow fair representation. Officially
labeled the Minorities Act, it would guarantee representation for Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, and Untouchables in the newly formed Indian government. The Act was supported by British representatives such as Ramsay MacDonald. According to the textbook Religions in the Modern World, B. R. Ambedkar,
who was also a supporter of the Act, was considered to be the
"untouchable leader" who made great efforts to eliminate caste system
privileges that included participation in public festivals, access to
temples, and wedding rituals. In 1932, Ambedkar proposed that the
untouchables create a separate electorate that ultimately led Gandhi to fast until it was rejected.
A separation within Hindu
society was opposed by national leaders at the time such as Gandhi,
although he took no exception to the demands of the other minorities. He
began a hunger strike, citing that such a separation would create an unhealthy divide within the religion. At the Round Table Conferences, he provided this explanation for his reasoning:
I
don't mind untouchables if they so desire, being converted to Islam or
Christianity. I should tolerate that, but I cannot possibly tolerate
what is in store for Hinduism if there are two divisions set forth in
the villages. Those who speak of the political rights of the
untouchables don't know their India, don't know how Indian society is
today constituted and therefore I want to say with all the emphasis that
I can command that if I was the only person to resist this thing that I
would resist it with my life.
Gandhi
achieved some success through his hunger strike however Dalit activists
faced pressure from the Hindu population at large to end his protest at
the risk of his ailing health. The two sides eventually came to a
compromise where the number of guaranteed seats for Untouchables would
be increased at both central and provincial levels, but there would be a
common electorate.
In public health, social distancing, also called physical distancing,is a set of non-pharmaceutical interventions or measures intended to prevent the spread of a contagious disease
by maintaining a physical distance between people and reducing the
number of times people come into close contact with each other.
It usually involves keeping a certain distance from others (the
distance specified differs from country to country and can change with
time) and avoiding gathering together in large groups.
By minimising the probability that a given uninfected person will come into physical contact with an infected person, the disease transmission can be suppressed, resulting in fewer deaths. The measures may be used in combination with others, such as good respiratory hygiene, face masks and hand washing. To slow down the spread of infectious diseases and avoid overburdening healthcare systems, particularly during a pandemic, several social-distancing measures are used, including the closing of schools and workplaces, isolation, quarantine, restricting the movement of people and the cancellation of mass gatherings. Drawbacks of social distancing can include loneliness, reduced productivity and the loss of other benefits associated with human interaction.
Social distancing measures are most effective when the infectious
disease spreads via one or more of the following methods, droplet
contact (coughing or sneezing), direct physical contact (including
sexual contact), indirect physical contact (such as by touching a
contaminated surface), and airborne transmission
(if the microorganism can survive in the air for long periods). The
measures are less effective when an infection is transmitted primarily
via contaminated water or food or by vectors such as mosquitoes or other insects. Authorities have encouraged or mandated social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic as it is an important method of preventing transmission of COVID-19.
COVID-19 is much more likely to spread over short distances than long
ones. However, it can spread over distances longer than 2 m (6 ft) in
enclosed, poorly ventilated places and with prolonged exposure.
The term "social distancing" was not introduced until the 21st century. Social distancing measures have been successfully implemented in several epidemics. In St. Louis, shortly after the first cases of influenza were detected in the city during the 1918 flu pandemic,
authorities implemented school closures, bans on public gatherings and
other social-distancing interventions. The influenza fatality rates in
St. Louis were much less than in Philadelphia,
which had fewer cases of influenza but allowed a mass parade to
continue and did not introduce social distancing until more than two
weeks after its first cases.
The World Health Organization
(WHO) has suggested using the term "physical distancing" instead of
"social distancing" because it is physical separation which prevents
transmission; people can remain socially connected by meeting outdoors
at a safe distance (when there is no stay-at-home order) and by meeting via technology.
Definition
The American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) have described social distancing as a set of "methods for
reducing frequency and closeness of contact between people in order to
decrease the risk of transmission of disease". During the 2009 swine flu pandemic the WHO described social distancing as "keeping at least an arm's length distance from others, [and] minimizing gatherings".
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC defined social distancing as
"remaining out of congregate settings, avoiding mass gatherings, and
maintaining distance (approximately six feet or two meters) from others
when possible".
Social distancing, combined with the use of face masks, good respiratory hygiene and hand washing, is considered the most feasible way to reduce or delay a pandemic.
Measures
Several social distancing measures are used to control the spread of
contagious illnesses. Research indicates that measures must be applied
rigorously and immediately in order to be effective.
Avoiding physical contact
Keeping a set physical distance from each other and avoiding hugs and gestures
that involve direct physical contact, reduce the risk of becoming
infected during outbreaks of infectious respiratory diseases (for
example, flu pandemics and the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020.) These distances of separation, in addition to personal hygiene measures, are also recommended at places of work. Where possible, remote work may be encouraged.
The WHO's one-metre recommendation stems from research into droplet-based transmission of tuberculosis by William F. Wells,
which had found that droplets produced by exhalation, coughs, or
sneezes landed an average of 3 ft (0.9 m) from where they were expelled.Quartz
speculated that the U.S. CDC's adoption of 6 ft (1.8 m) may have
stemmed from a study of SARS transmission on an airplane, published in The New England Journal of Medicine. When contacted, however, the CDC did not provide any specific information.
Some have suggested that distances greater than 1–2 m (3.3–6.6 ft) should be observed. One minute of loud speaking can produce oral droplets with a load of 7 million SARS-CoV-2 virus per milliliter that can remain for more than eight minutes,
a time-period during which many people could enter or remain in the
area. A sneeze can distribute such droplets as far as 7 m (23 ft) or 8 m
(26 ft). Social distancing is less effective than face masks at reducing the spread of COVID-19.
Various alternatives have been proposed for the tradition of handshaking. The gesture of namaste,
placing one's palms together, fingers pointing upwards, drawing the
hands to the heart, is one non-touch alternative. During the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, this gesture was used by Prince Charles upon greeting reception guests, and has been recommended by the Director-General of the WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Other alternatives include the popular thumbs up gesture, the wave, the shaka (or "hang loose") sign, and placing a palm on one's heart, as practiced in parts of Iran.
In this computer lab, every other
workstation has been closed off to increase the distance between people
working, and screens between workstations are also in place.
Floor markings can help people maintain distance in public places, especially when queueing.
Urinals adjusted in a way close contacts are less likely
School closures
Mathematical modeling has shown that transmission of an outbreak may
be delayed by closing schools. However, effectiveness depends on the
contacts children maintain outside of school. Often, one parent has to
take time off work, and prolonged closures may be required. These
factors could result in social and economic disruption.
Workplace closures
Modeling and simulation studies based on U.S. data suggest that if 10% of affected workplaces are closed, the overall infection transmission
rate is around 11.9% and the epidemic peak time is slightly delayed. In
contrast, if 33% of affected workplaces are closed, the attack rate
decreases to 4.9%, and the peak time is delayed by one week.
Workplace closures include closure of "non-essential" businesses and
social services ("non-essential" means those facilities that do not
maintain primary functions in the community, as opposed to essential services).
Canceling mass gatherings
Cancellation of mass gatherings includes sports events, films or musical shows. Evidence suggesting that mass gatherings increase the potential for infectious disease transmission is inconclusive. Anecdotal evidence suggests certain types of mass gatherings may be associated with increased risk of influenza transmission,
and may also "seed" new strains into an area, instigating community
transmission in a pandemic. During the 1918 influenza pandemic, military parades in Philadelphia and Boston
may have been responsible for spreading the disease by mixing infected
sailors with crowds of civilians. Restricting mass gatherings, in
combination with other social distancing interventions, may help reduce
transmission. A recent peer-reviewed study in the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) also suggested it as one of the key components of an effective strategy in reducing the burden of COVID-19.
Travel restrictions
Border restrictions or internal travel restrictions are unlikely to
delay an epidemic by more than two to three weeks unless implemented
with over 99% coverage. Airport screening was found to be ineffective in preventing viral transmission during the 2003 SARS outbreak in Canada and the U.S. Strict border controls between Austria and the Ottoman Empire, imposed from 1770 until 1871 to prevent persons infected with the bubonic plague
from entering Austria, were reportedly effective, as there were no
major outbreaks of plague in Austrian territory after they were
established, whereas the Ottoman Empire continued to suffer frequent
epidemics of plague until the mid-nineteenth century.
A Northeastern University study published in March 2020 found that "travel restrictions to and from China only slow down the international spread of COVID-19
[when] combined with efforts to reduce transmission on a community and
an individual level. ... Travel restrictions aren't enough unless we
couple it with social distancing." The study found that the travel ban in Wuhan
delayed the spread of the disease to other parts of mainland China only
by three to five days, although it did reduce the spread of
international cases by as much as 80 percent.
Shielding
Shielding measures for individuals include limiting face-to-face
contacts, conducting business by phone or online, avoiding public places
and reducing unnecessary travel.
During the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, shielding
referred to special advisory measures put in place by the UK Government
to protect those at the highest risk of serious illness from the
disease. This included those with weakened immune systems (such as organ
transplant recipients), as well as those with certain medical
conditions such as cystic fibrosis or severe asthma. Until June 1, 2020,
those shielding were strongly advised not to leave home for any reason
at all, including essential travel, and to maintain a 2 m (6.6 ft)
distance from anyone else in their household. Supermarkets quickly made
priority grocery delivery slots available to those shielding, and the
Government arranged for food boxes to be sent to those shielding who
needed additional assistance, for example elderly people shielding on
their own. This was gradually relaxed from June to allow shielders to
spend more time outside, before being suspended indefinitely from August
1.
During the 2003 SARS outbreak in Singapore, approximately 8000 people were subjected to mandatory home quarantine and an additional 4300
were required to self-monitor for symptoms and make daily telephone
contact with health authorities as a means of controlling the epidemic.
Although only 58 of these individuals were eventually diagnosed with
SARS, public health officials were satisfied that this measure assisted
in preventing further spread of the infection. Voluntary self-isolation may have helped reduce transmission of influenza in Texas in 2009. Short and long-term negative psychological effects have been reported.
The objective of stay-at-home orders is to reduce day-to-day contact between people and thereby reduce the spread of infection During the COVID-19 pandemic,
early and aggressive implementation of stay-at-home orders was
effective in "flattening the curve" and provided the much needed time
for healthcare systems to increase their capacity while reducing the
number of peak cases during the initial wave of illness.
It is important for public health authorities to follow disease trends
closely to re-implement appropriate social distancing policies,
including stay-at-home orders, if secondary COVID-19 waves appear.
In 1995, a cordon sanitaire was used to control an outbreak of Ebola virus disease in Kikwit, Zaire.President Mobutu Sese Seko surrounded the town with troops and suspended all flights into the community. Inside Kikwit, the World Health Organization and Zaire's medical teams erected further cordons sanitaires, isolating burial and treatment zones from the general population and successfully containing the infection.
During the 1918 influenza epidemic, the town of Gunnison,
Colorado, isolated itself for two months to prevent an introduction of
the infection. Highways were barricaded and arriving train passengers
were quarantined for five days. As a result of the isolation, no one
died of influenza in Gunnison during the epidemic. Several other communities adopted similar measures.
Other measures
Other measures include shutting down or limiting mass transit and closure of sport facilities (community swimming pools, youth clubs, gymnasiums).
Due to the highly interconnected nature of modern transportation hubs, a
highly contagious illness can achieve rapid geographic spread if
appropriate mitigation measures are not taken early.
Consequently, highly coordinated efforts must be put into place early
during an outbreak to proactively monitor, detect, and isolate any
potentially infectious individuals.
If community spread is present, more aggressive measures may be
required, up to and including complete cessation of travel in/out of a
specific geographic area.
Communicating social distancing public health guidelines
Public health messaging, gaining the public's trust (countering
misinformation), ensuring community involvement and two-way exchange of
ideas can affect the uptake, adherence, and effectiveness of
best-evidence social distancing approach to preventing disease spread.
The communication approaches, messaging, and delivery mechanisms need
to be flexible so that they can be changed as both the best-evidence
social distancing measures change and as the community needs change.
History
Leper colonies and lazarettos were established as a means of preventing the spread of leprosy and other contagious diseases through social distancing, until transmission was understood and effective treatments invented.
Two lepers denied entrance to town. Woodcut by Vincent of Beauvais, 14th century
New York City parks and playgrounds were closed during a 1916 polio epidemic.
Passenger without mask being refused boarding of a streetcar amid 1918 flu pandemic. (Seattle, Washington, 1918)
1916 New York City polio epidemic
During the 1916 New York City polio epidemic,
when there were more than 27,000 cases and more than 6,000 deaths due
to polio in the United States, with more than 2,000 deaths in New York
City alone, movie theaters were closed, meetings were cancelled, public
gatherings were almost non-existent, and children were warned not to
drink from water fountains, and told to avoid amusement parks, swimming
pools and beaches.
During the influenza pandemic of 1918, Philadelphia saw its first cases of influenza on 17 September. The city continued with its planned parade and gathering of more than 200000
people on 28 September and over the subsequent three days, the city's
31 hospitals became fully occupied. During the week ending 16 October,
over 4500 people died. Social distancing measures were introduced on 3October, on the orders of St. Louis physician Max C. Starkloff, more than two weeks after the first case. Unlike Philadelphia, St. Louis experienced its first cases of influenza on 5October and the city took two days to implement several social distancing measures,
including closing schools, theatres, and other places where people get
together. It banned public gatherings, including funerals. The actions
slowed the spread of influenza in St. Louis and a spike in cases and
deaths, as had happened in Philadelphia, did not occur. The final death rate in St. Louis increased following a second wave of cases, but remained overall less than in other cities. Bootsma and Ferguson
analyzed social distancing interventions in sixteen U.S. cities during
the 1918 epidemic and found that time-limited interventions reduced
total mortality only moderately (perhaps 10–30%), and that the impact
was often very limited because the interventions were introduced too
late and lifted too early. It was observed that several cities
experienced a second epidemic peak after social distancing controls were
lifted, because susceptible individuals who had been protected were now
exposed.
School closures were shown to reduce morbidity from the Asian flu by 90% during the 1957–1958 pandemic, and up to 50% in controlling influenza in the U.S., 2004–2008.
Similarly, mandatory school closures and other social distancing
measures were associated with a 29% to 37% reduction in influenza
transmission rates during the 2009 flu epidemic in Mexico.
The 2009 swine flu pandemic
caused social distancing to rise in popularity, most notably in Mexico,
with the country's Ministry of Health advising people to avoid
handshakes and kissing as ways of greeting people.
A mandatory nationwide school closure enacted in Mexico, which lasted
for 18 days from late April 2009 to early May 2009, was a form of social
distancing aimed at reducing the transmission of Swine flu.
A study from 2011 found the mandatory nationwide school closure and
other forms of social distancing in Mexico were effective at reducing
influenza transmission rates.
During the swine flu outbreak in 2009 in the UK, in an article titled "Closure of schools during an influenza pandemic" published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases,
a group of epidemiologists endorsed the closure of schools to interrupt
the course of the infection, slow the further spread and buy time to
research and produce a vaccine. Having studied previous influenza pandemics including the 1918 flu pandemic, the influenza pandemic of 1957 and the 1968 flu pandemic,
they reported on the economic and workforce effect school closure would
have, particularly with a large percentage of doctors and nurses being
women, of whom half had children under the age of 16. They also looked
at the dynamics of the spread of influenza in France during French
school holidays and noted that cases of flu dropped when schools closed
and re-emerged when they re-opened. They noted that when teachers in
Israel went on strike during the flu season of 1999–2000, visits to
doctors and the number of respiratory infections dropped by more than a
fifth and more than two fifths respectively.
SARS 2003
During the SARS outbreak of 2003,
social distancing measures were implemented, such as banning large
gatherings, closing schools and theaters, and other public places,
supplemented public health measures such as finding and isolating
affected people, quarantining their close contacts, and infection
control procedures. This was combined with the wearing of masks for
certain people. During this time in Canada, "community quarantine" was used to reduce transmission of the disease with moderate success.
During the COVID-19 pandemic,
social distancing and related measures are emphasized by several
governments as alternatives to an enforced quarantine of heavily
affected areas. According to UNESCO monitoring, more than a hundred countries have implemented nationwide school closures in response to COVID-19, impacting over half the world's student population.
In the United Kingdom, the government advised the public to avoid
public spaces, and cinemas and theaters voluntarily closed to encourage
the government's message.
With many people disbelieving that COVID-19 is any worse than the seasonal flu,
it has been difficult to convince the public—particularly youth, and
the anti vaxx community to voluntarily adopt social distancing
practices. In Belgium, media reported a rave was attended by at least 300 before it was broken up by local authorities. In France, teens making nonessential trips are fined up to US$150. Beaches were closed in Florida and Alabama to disperse partygoers during spring break. Weddings were broken up in New Jersey and an 8p.m. curfew was imposed in Newark.
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania were the first
states to adopt coordinated social distancing policies which closed down
non-essential businesses and restricted large gatherings. Shelter in
place orders in California were extended to the entire state on 19 March. On the same day Texas declared a public disaster and imposed statewide restrictions.
These preventive measures such as social-distancing and self-isolation prompted the widespread closure of primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools in more than 120 countries. As of 23 March 2020, more than 1.2 billion learners were out of school due to school closures in response to COVID-19. Given low rates of COVID-19 symptoms among children, the effectiveness of school closures has been called into question. Even when school closures are temporary, it carries high social and economic costs. However, the significance of children in spreading COVID-19 is unclear.
While the full impact of school closures during the coronavirus
pandemic are not yet known, UNESCO advises that school closures have
negative impacts on local economies and on learning outcomes for
students.
In early March 2020, the sentiment "Stay Home" was coined by
Florian Reifschneider, a German engineer and was quickly echoed by
notable celebrities such as Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande and Busy Philipps in hopes of reducing and delaying the peak of the outbreak. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram
also joined the campaign with similar hashtags, stickers and filters
under #staythefhome, #stayhome, #staythefuckhome and began trending
across social media. The website claims to have reached about two million people online and says the text has been translated into 17 languages.
There are concerns that social distancing can have adverse affects on participants' mental health. It may lead to stress, anxiety, depression or panic, especially for individuals with preexisting conditions such as anxiety disorders, obsessive compulsive disorders, and paranoia.
Widespread media coverage about a pandemic, its impact on economy, and
resulting hardships may create anxiety. Change in daily circumstances
and uncertainty about the future may add onto the mental stress of being
away from other people.
Psychologist Lennis Echterling
noted that, in such social distancing situations, using technology for
"connection with loved ones...is imperative" to combat isolation, for
the sake of one's well-being.
Social worker Mindy Altschul noted that the concept of "social
distancing" ought to be reframed as "physical distancing", so as to
emphasize the fact that being physically isolated need not, and should
not, result in being socially isolated.
People with autism
also suffer impact from social distancing. Adjusting to a new routine
can be stressful for everyone within the spectrum but especially for
children who have trouble with change. Children with autism may not know what is going on or might not be able to express their fears and frustrations. They also may need extra support to understand what's expected of them in some situations.The adjustment to a new situation can lead to challenging behavior
uncharacteristic of the autistic individual's true character. In some countries and demographics, teenagers and young adults within the autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) receive support services including special education, behavioral therapy,
occupational therapy, speech services, and individual aides through
school, but this can be a major challenge, particularly since many
teenagers with ASD already have social and communication difficulties. Aggressive and self-injurious behaviors may increase during this time of fear and uncertainty.
Portrayal in literature
In his 1957 science fiction novel The Naked Sun, Isaac Asimov
portrays a planet where people live with social distancing. They are
spread out, miles from each other, across a sparsely-populated world.
Communication is primarily through technology. A male and a female still
need to engage in sex to make a baby, but it is seen as a dangerous,
nasty chore. In contrast, when communication is through technology the
situation is the reverse: there is no modesty, and casual nudity is
frequent. The novel's point of departure is a murder: this seemingly
idyllic world, in fact, has serious social problems.
Theoretical basis
From the perspective of epidemiology, the basic goal behind social distancing is to decrease the effective reproduction number, or , which in the absence of social distancing would equate to the basic reproduction number,
i.e. the average number of secondary infected individuals generated
from one primary infected individual in a population where all
individuals are equally susceptible to a disease. In a basic model of
social distancing, where a proportion of the population engages in social distancing to decrease their interpersonal contacts to a fraction of their normal contacts, the new effective reproduction number is given by:
Where the value of can be brought below1 for sufficiently long, containment is achieved, and the number infected should decrease.
For any given period of time, the growth in the number of infections can be modeled as:
where:
is the number of infected individuals after incubation periods (5 days, in the case of COVID-19)
Using COVID-19 as an example, the following table shows the infection spread given:
A: No social distance mitigation
B: 50% reduction in social interaction
C: 75% reduction in social interaction
Number of infections after days for various values of
Time
A
B
C
5 days (1 incubation period)
2.5
1.25
0.625
30 days (6 incubation periods)
406
15
2.5
Effectiveness
An empirical study published in July 2020 in The BMJ (British Medical Journal)
analyzed data from 149 countries, and reported an average of 13%
reduction in COVID-19 incidence after the implementation of social
distancing policies.
Another study found that four social distancing interventions combined
resulted in a reduction of the infection rate from 66% to less than 1%.
M. leprae,
the bacterium responsible for leprosy, is believed to have spread from
East Africa through the Middle East, Europe, and Asia by the 5th century
before reaching the rest of the world more recently. Historically, leprosy was believed to be extremely contagious and divinely ordained, leading to enormous stigma against its sufferers. Other severe skin diseases
were frequently conflated with leprosy and all such sufferers were kept
away from the general public, although some religious orders provided
medical care and treatment. Recent research has shown M. leprae
has maintained a similarly virulent genome over at least the last
thousand years, leaving it unclear which precise factors led to
leprosy's near elimination in Europe by 1700. A growing number of cases
following the first wave of European colonization, however, led to increased attention towards leprosy during the New Imperialism of the late 19th century. Following G.A. Hansen's discovery of the role of M. leprae in the disease, the First International Leprosy Conference held in Berlin in 1897 renewed interest and investment in the isolation of lepers throughout the European colonial empires. Although Western countries now generally treat cases of leprosy individually on an outpatient basis, traditional isolated colonies continue to exist in India, China, and some other countries.
Names
In medieval Latin, a place for the isolation and care of lepers was known as a leprosaria, leprosarium, or leprosorium, names which are sometimes used in English as well. The Latin domus leprosaria was calqued in English as leper house, with leper colony
becoming by far the most common English term in the 1880s as the
growing number of leprosy cases were discussed within the context of European colonialism. Less common synonyms include leper asylum, leper lodge, and leper hospital. Other names derive from the figure of Lazarus in one of Jesus's parables, treated by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages as a historical figure and as the patron saint of both lepers and the CrusaderOrder of Saint Lazarus, who administered the leper colony in Jerusalem before spreading to other locations. This caused leper colonies to also be known as lazar houses and, after the leper colony and quarantine center on Venice's Sta. Maria di Nazareth, as lazarets, lazarettes, lazarettos, and lazarettas. The name leper or leprosy villageis sometimes used for colonies in China, a calque of the Mandarin name máfēngcūn(t麻風村,s麻风村).
Although not all of the skin diseases (kushtha) discussed in the Indian Vedas and the Laws of Manu were leprosy, some of them seem to have been, with the disease appearing in the subcontinent by at least 2000BC. The Indian religious texts and laws did not organize formal leper colonies but treated those afflicted with the disease as untouchableoutcastes, forbidding and punishing any marriage with them while they suffered from the disease, which was considered both contagious and a divine punishment for sins of the sufferer's current or former life.
In legend, even kings were removed from power and left to wander in the
forests while suffering from leprosy, although their position could be
restored in the event of their recovery, whether through divine
intervention or Ayurvedic herbal remedies such as chaulmoogra oil. Similarly, the ancient Persians and Hebrews
considered certain skin diseases to render people unclean and unfit for
society, without organizing any special locations for their care; it
seems likely, however, that the references to "leprosy" in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are the result of a misunderstanding produced by the Septuagint's Greek translation and subsequent Latin translations like the Vulgate and originally referred to a variety of conditions such as psoriasis
before becoming associated with leprosy centuries later. This confusion
of terms—and the related divine opprobrium—was then translated into Islamic medicine in the 9th century. The introduction of leprosy to southern Europe was blamed on the armies of Alexander and Pompey; ancient Greek and Roman doctors did not blame divine punishment and advocated various treatments but still usually advised that lepers be kept out of cities. Some early Christians sought to emulate Jesus's example by personally ministering to lepers or communities of lepers, activity recorded in hagiographies like StGregory's life of StBasil.
Leprosy seems to have reached the rest of Europe during late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, with the imperial Church reducing formal restrictions on lepers while setting aside funds for leprosaria where clerics would treat the afflicted. Such leper houses are documented at St-Oyen in 460, Chalon-sur-Saône in 570, and Verdun in 634; their management was often provided by monastic orders. The area of modern Belgium alone may have had as many as 700 or 800 prior to the Crusades. Christian folklore misunderstood the parable of Lazarus and Dives as a historical account and took the sore-covered beggar in the story as StLazarus, patron of lepers; the military orderStLazarus was established to care for lepers in Crusader Jerusalem
and subsequently operated other leprosaria around Europe. Some colonies
were located on mountains or in remote locations to ensure isolation,
some on main roads, where donations would be made for their upkeep.
Others were essentially hospitals within major cities. In 1623 the Congregation of the Mission, a Catholicsociety of apostolic life founded by Vincent de Paul,
was given possession of the Priory of St. Lazarus, a former leper house
in Paris, due to which the entire Congregation gained the name of
"Lazarites" or "Lazarists" although most of its members had nothing to
do with caring for lepers.
Debate exists over the conditions found within historical
colonies; while they are currently thought to have been grim and
neglected places, there are some indications that life within a leper
colony or house was no worse than the life of other, non-isolated
individuals. There is even doubt that the current definition of leprosy
can be retrospectively applied to the medieval condition. What was
classified as leprosy then covers a wide range of skin conditions that
would be classified as distinct afflictions today. Some leper colonies issued their own money or tokens, in the belief that allowing people affected by leprosy to handle regular money could spread the disease.
Today leper hospitals exist throughout the world to treat those
afflicted with leprosy, especially in Africa, Brazil, China and India.
Political aspects
In 2001, government-run leper colonies in Japan
came under judicial scrutiny, leading to the determination that the
Japanese government had mistreated the patients, and the district court
ordered Japan to pay compensation to former patients.
In 2002, a formal inquiry into these colonies was set up, and in March
2005, the policy was strongly denounced. "Japan's policy of absolute
quarantine... did not have any scientific grounds."
The inquiry denounced not only the government and the doctors who were
involved with the policy, but also the court that repeatedly ruled in
favor of the government when the policy was challenged, as well as the
media, which failed to report the plight of the victims.