People thinking in black and white won’t get this, but adopting a Zero COVID goal doesn’t imply doing anything regardless of ethics or cost-benefit analysis.
Zero COVID can and should be subordinate to ethics and cost-benefit.
Let me explain.
Zero-Targets aren’t literal
As anyone who has ever worked in manufacturing knows, Zero-Targets (such as Zero Defects and Zero Injuries) aren’t literal. This is because sustaining an actual zero-problems rate is often impossible or excessively costly. There is a point beyond which further reducing problems doesn’t make sense.
However, most manufacturing companies noticed the following:
They weren’t even close to the point of decreasing returns. So for them, progressing toward Zero Defects was well worth the costs and efforts.
It’s hard, if not impossible, to move from “many defects” to “few defects” without aiming for “Zero Defects.” Normalizing defects prevents addressing them.
Defects-reduction gets easier and cheaper over time. Initially, tools and processes to reduce defects are imperfect, expensive, and effortful. However, the more people use them, the better, easier, and cheaper they become.
The same applies to Zero COVID:
Most countries aren’t even close to the point of decreasing returns. Eradicating the virus might not be possible anymore, or is too expensive anyway. That said, there are plenty of low-cost, high-return actions countries can take to reduce COVID infections. (For example, requiring N95 masks within hospitals.)
It’s hard, if not impossible, to reduce COVID spread without aiming for Zero. Accepting a problem as inevitable prevents making progress against it.
Mitigation measures get easier and cheaper over time. Masks, tests, and most tools we used to fight COVID are much cheaper today than in 2020, and some also improved in effectiveness. This is because the more we use something, the better we become at producing and using it. Cost-benefit analyses must include not only current costs and benefits but also future ones.
Of course, there’s a point beyond which further improvements come with higher costs than benefits. But we are far from it.
Zero-Targets don’t justify everything
It doesn’t have to be this way. Just as a Zero Injuries goal doesn’t automatically justify expensive safety investments and excessive policies, a Zero COVID goal doesn’t justify draconian measures.
Laws, ethics, and opportunity cost considerations set boundaries that we shouldn’t cross.
Adopting a Zero COVID goal doesn’t mean taking every action that reduces viral spread regardless of its externalities. Instead, it means to look for every opportunity to reduce infections and only implement those that are ethical and worth it.
Zero COVID means to be determined to do as much as possible when possible; nothing more, nothing less.
Zero-Targets are more effective than mediocre targets
Aiming for Zero won’t achieve zero. But it will still be more effective than more conservative goals.
For example, suppose that after a few years of Zero COVID efforts, we achieve a reduction of cases to just x per day. If we had directly aimed at achieving x instead, we would have achieved y, with y > x.
This is not just because Zero-Targets are more motivating. It’s also because aiming for Zero achieves near-zero in some contexts (e.g., buses) and “acceptable levels” in others (e.g., schools). Conversely, aiming for “acceptable” yields “acceptable” in all contexts.
Moreover, aiming for Zero yields more and larger improvements. Let me give you an example. Imagine that in a hospital last month, there were ten spreading events. If we aimed for Zero, there would be ten incident investigations, from which there would be ten learning opportunities. Would the same happen if we didn’t aim for Zero? I doubt so. Complacency, inertia, and plausible deniability would lead to fewer and worse incident investigations, if any.
Aiming for Zero yields better results even without reaching Zero.
Summary
Zero COVID isn’t a literal goal but a tool. Eradicability isn’t a prerequisite for its adoption.
Adopting a Zero COVID target doesn’t imply justifying draconian measures. Law, ethics, and cost-benefit considerations should still prevail.
And yet, adopting a Zero COVID target is likely to yield better outcomes than non-Zero targets. This is because aiming for Zero is necessary to achieve optimal trade-offs in every circumstance.
If zero is understood to be impossible, then aiming for it will never sit well with people. Good news is, it may be as simple as changing the word "for" to "towards:" Aiming in the direction of an impossible goal is, to the inner linguist in each of us, more acceptable than aiming for [something known to be] the "impossible."