We’re in the middle of the worst public health crisis in a century, one in which adherence to public health guidelines makes all the difference between an out-of-control pestilence and a serious but containable emergency.
California, at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, slowed what looked to be its inexorable spread with an extraordinary yet simple solution:
Shut it all down. Everything.
But aside from the economic consequences of sheltering an entire state in place, public health officials were aware of another reason that asking people to remain totally insulated from the dangers of the coronavirus would have diminishing returns:
From a public health perspective, pasting a proverbial big X over something is frequently a losing bet.
“To get people to change their behavior, to forbid them to do something is not usually successful,” said Dr. John Swartzberg, clinical professor emeritus at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health.
Swartzberg points to the U.S. ban on alcohol, in effect from 1920 to 1933, as a historical example.

Prohibition, Swartzberg says, was a “puritanical” approach to eradicating real societal ills associated with drinking. But it was ultimately repealed, and it’s widely viewed as a failure due to unintended consequences that included the rise of organized crime through bootlegging and the deaths of people who consumed toxic illegal alcohol.
Today, governments use a well-established strategy called harm reduction to help mitigate the negative effects of not only alcohol but a host of other public health risks, including the spread of COVID-19.
The basic principle behind harm reduction: Don’t tell people they absolutely can’t do something, because it won’t work as well as allowing the behavior, but with added rules to reduce risk.
If Prohibition is a cautionary tale of what happens when harm reduction is left out of the equation, the concept of safer sex is a textbook example of how it can work.
In the earliest days of the HIV crisis, Swartzberg says, health officials promoted an abstinence-only message.
“That clearly didn’t work,” he said, so it was dropped in favor of encouraging people to engage in practices like using condoms and getting tested for the virus.
“We know you’re going to go have sex. But if you’re having sex, here’s what you can do to reduce your risk and your partner’s risk. That was a much more successful policy. It’s the same thing with what we’re talking about with COVID.”
As scientists continue to work on therapies to address the disease, Bay Area health officials have made one thing clear: Social distancing and masking, ways of reducing risk from the coronavirus, are here to stay for a good while longer. A safe and effective vaccine may be at least several months away; meanwhile all the data has shown that wearing masks and avoiding indoor gatherings are keys to slowing the spread of the disease.
While many months into the crisis people may be suffering mask-wearing and social distancing fatigue, public health experts say the rules are designed to actually allow people more freedom, not less, compared to the constraints of a strict lockdown.
The incremental reopening of different parts of the economy as California counties move through the state’s risk assessment levels is a case in point for how a society can modulate harm reduction in response to changing circumstances. At the highest risk level, the state allows shopping malls to open at 25% capacity; at the next highest, it’s 50%; and at the next, 100%, but with closed common areas and reduced-capacity food courts. In other words, the harm reduction measures ratchet down as the risk subsides.
