by Sara Manfrè
by Randi Morse
COVID Spectrum
Isolation, Lockdown, and Mental Health
The impact of quarantine on people, examined from a
professional point of view by Italian psychologist Loredana
Borgogno.
The COVID pandemic led many countries and people
into forced isolation, but in some cases not being able to
socially interact, outside of phone or video calls, had a
bigger negative impact on some more than others.
From a professional point of view, psychologist Loredana
Borgogno explains that there is both a similarity and a
difference between feeling alone and being alone, but
that in any case “you have to distinguish loneliness as a
state of mind, from isolation brought by something or
someone,” in this case, the pandemic.
The similarity is given by the fact that both loneliness
and isolation do not coincide with what primitive human
nature is, namely that of being in a group. Then Borgogno
goes on to say that the
difference lies instead in the
answers, that is, “loneliness
as a state of mind provokes
emotions of uneasiness,
insecurity, fear; while the
loneliness given by forced
isolation paints and ignites
emotions such as anger and
rebellion”.
Those who have suffered
the most from isolation are
the ones who have suffered
the kind of loneliness that
can lead to depression, or
adaptation difficulties or
disorders, and those who
have had previous mental
health problems may have
suffered a worsening of
their state.
image: Anthony Tran
Futhermore, Borgogno suggests that there may also
be an insurgence of a post-traumatic stress disorder
in many people who have been in the front line; people
“who have actually experienced the disease to help
others, and sometimes felt it on themselves, will suffer.”
But she also states that there have not yet been studies to
support this thesis fully.
The advice that Borgogno gives is to try to contain or
limit exposure to information that can generate anxiety
or confusion, and focus on new hobbies without jumping
on alcohol or smoking.
Loneliness and isolation do
not coincide with primitive
human nature.
Why was New Zealand so successful at containing the spread
of COVID-19? They considered mental health.
It has been nearly five months since the U.K. first
entered lockdown on 23 March due to COVID-19. “All
unnecessary social contact should cease,” said Matt
Hancock, the U.K. Secretary of State for Health and Social
Care, to the House of Commons.
While leaders across the world have been concerned
about the economic impact of lockdown, others have
recognised the risk it posed to mental health. The
Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, has
consistently expressed her concerns during lockdown.
“Amongst all of the things we need to think about as we
tackle COVID-19 -including people’s health and their
livelihoods - I also worry about everyone’s well being and
mental health,” said Ardern via Instagram.
Even in Level Four, the
strictest level of lockdown,
New Zealand had what was
called ‘social bubbles’ in
order to combat the risk to
mental health and allow
those in need to receive
support.
If an individual lived alone
then they were allowed
to form a bubble with one
other person, within the
same community, that also
lived alone. Or a parent
could form a bubble with the
other parent of their child/
ren to allow children to
move between homes.
According to Dr David
Douglas M.D., M.P.H,
an expert in public health, the best way to combat
depression is through social interaction.
“People need to have regular social interactions to
maintain their mental health,” said Dr Douglas.
Compliance with the rules of lockdown in New Zealand
was high. As lockdown eased, the bubbles were allowed to
expand.
“New Zealand’s buddying systems had relatively low
rates of uptake, but were greatly valued by the people
who used them”, wrote Dr. Nicholas Long, et al. in Living
in Bubbles during the Coronavirus Pandemic: Insights from
New Zealand.
New Zealand dropped to Level One on the 8th of June, 11
weeks after first entering lockdown. They had one of the
lowest COVID-19 death rates in the world, with a total of
22 deaths in a population of 4.8 million.
22