As Simple as Possible: A Balance Overlooked: COVID-19 Response and Einstein’s Precept

There is a certain elegance in simplicity that genius minds have admired throughout the centuries. Albert Einstein, one of the 20th century’s greatest minds, gave this sentiment form in his assertion that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” In essence, Einstein was advising us to avoid the snares of overcomplication while simultaneously cautioning against oversimplification. Unfortunately, this adage seems to have been cast aside in the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The breadth and scale of the pandemic demanded a swift and comprehensive response, and there can be no dispute on that. However, this is not to suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach was the most reasonable course. A reflexive preference for comprehensive lockdowns was, I argue, a marked oversimplification that overlooked the multifaceted nature of public health and wellbeing.

The virus does not affect all citizens equally. From the onset, it was clear that the elderly and those with comorbidities bore the heaviest health burden. They were, and remain, the most at risk. A more nuanced approach, then, would have focused efforts on safeguarding these particularly vulnerable groups. It is a matter of specialization, not broad strokes. By tailoring the strategy, not only could we have better protected those most susceptible to severe disease, but we could have also minimized the unintended consequences of the response.

Take, for instance, the seismic mental health crisis that the lockdowns have instigated. Isolation, financial strain, and chronic fear have exacted a staggering psychological toll. The general lockdowns, by way of their indiscrimination, have produced a second epidemic of mental health disorders. A specialized approach, on the other hand, could have largely mitigated these issues, focusing on high-risk individuals while allowing lower-risk groups to maintain some semblance of normalcy.

The blanket lockdowns also inadvertently fueled economic turmoil. By putting a near-universal halt to economic activities, millions faced job losses, business closures, and financial instability. Once again, a tailored approach targeting those at risk would have allowed us to preserve the economic health of the nation while maintaining the physical health of the vulnerable.

Vaccines, a beacon of hope in this crisis, have not been without their complications. Though generally safe and effective, they carry a risk of side effects. For the young and healthy, who are unlikely to suffer severe disease, the balance of benefits and risks may seem murky. Yet, under the umbrella of general lockdowns, this group was also nudged towards vaccination, notwithstanding the risk, however minimal, of adverse effects.

Einstein's maxim was not heeded in our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A comprehensive, undiscriminating approach resulted in oversimplification. By applying a broad brush where a finer one was needed, we have grappled with severe repercussions in mental health, economy, and the broader sense of societal wellbeing. The solution, indeed, needed to be as simple as possible, but not simpler. A specialized approach, focusing on those most at risk, could have tempered these damaging consequences without sacrificing public health security.