ABSTRACT
This paper characterizes a pandemic as a kind of contagion, and describes a contagion as a two-level, two-direction, reflexive feedback loop system. In such a system, expert opinions for managing a pandemic can act as self-fulfilling prophecies due to how they influence collective belief formation. However, when multiple experts produce multiple expert opinions that act as self-fulfilling prophecies, this can fragment a society’s response to a pandemic, worsening rather than ameliorating it. This paper models this possible outcome by distinguishing two competing expert opinions, appealing respectively to people in club good and common pool types of employment/health insurance situations, and argues that to combat fragmentation of opinion about how to address a pandemic, public health policy needs to attend to the nature of public reasoning. It argues this entails asking how just and legitimate deliberative institutions can function in an ‘inclusive and noncoercive’ way that allows society to reconcile competing visions regarding how to combat system-wide crises such as pandemics.
KEYWORDS:
COVID-19; contagion; self-fulfilling prophecy; public health; experts; club goods; common pool goods; public reasoning, stigmatization; noncoercive; decent society