Featured Post from Baylor University

Public Health Crises — Such as COVID-19 — May Lead to Flare-ups of Dangerous Religious Sentiments, including ‘Scapegoating’

Mar 24, 2020

8 min

Jeff Levin, Ph.D.



Public health crises such as COVID-19 — in which people may feel powerless and receive conflicting information — can lead to a flare-up of unsafe religious sentiments, says Baylor University epidemiologist Jeff Levin, Ph.D., who cites past persecution of religious and ethnic minorities who were blamed unfairly for spreading disease.


While some possibly unreliable projections about COVID-19 are being spread, containment — and common sense — are key, Levin says. In addition, research shows that maintaining one’s spiritual life can help people remain strong in the face of health challenges and encourage them to reach out to help others.


Levin is University Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health, director of the Program on Religion and Population Health in Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion and adjunct professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University School of Medicine. He recently lectured at Duke about the COVID-19 outbreak, on infectious disease pandemics in general and on religious dimensions of the present crisis.


In this Q&A, he speaks about these issues.


Q. What do you feel is the most important message that needs to get out about the coronavirus outbreak?


LEVIN: There are still folks out there saying, “Ah, this is nothing” or “It's all hype.” I'm not that guy. This is very serious. Still, I believe that some misinformation is getting out there that's scaring people, and that's not a helpful thing. I have some concerns about how the facts and nuances of this outbreak have been communicated to the public. In the past few weeks, the news and internet and social media have been inundated with some very alarming projections, some of which in my opinion may be off perhaps by an order of magnitude. This is due in part to mistaken calculations being made by people, including M.D.s who don't understand the parameters of disease transmission or the concepts that epidemiologists use to track outbreaks. This also includes some government officials who are miscommunicating issues regarding risk, pathogenesis and prognosis, and this information is then being picked up by the media and projected out to the general public. Suddenly, even laypeople people are throwing around very technical epidemiologic jargon — exposure, infectivity, case fatality, herd immunity, transmission, incubation period, flattening the curve — without knowing exactly what these words mean or how they’re used, and some faulty messages are getting out. There’s a pressing need for responsible public voices who can help separate the signal from the noise, but those voices seem to be scarce.


But regardless, whatever the projections are — good, bad, or ugly — so much hinges on containment. If we manage that properly, such as through all the good advice we’ve been given about social distancing, washing our hands, disinfecting surfaces and so on, we'll get through this with minimal — a relative term — casualties. If we ignore this advice, things can go south in a hurry. It only takes one clinical case getting loose in the community to create a secondary outbreak. Noncompliance can easily create an army of “Typhoid Marys” in communities across the country.


In any outbreak due to any pathogenic agent, such as the SARS-CoV-2 virus, there are things we can do, one, to break the chain of transmission and, two, to minimize the damage to ourselves. There’s a public health response and a personal response. The public health effort is focused on how to limit exposure and transmission, which is exactly what needs to happen. There are policies that we should follow as far as our own behavior and social interactions and as far as the environment we live in where the virus is circulating. We’ve all become familiar with what these things are.


But there’s the other side of the coin. In epidemiologic terms, exposure does not imply infectivity. Not everyone who is exposed to the virus will become infected. Infectivity in turn does not imply pathogenicity. Not everyone who is infected, who receives a positive test, will become a clinical case, will become sick. And finally, not everyone who comes down with COVID-19 and manifests signs and symptoms of disease will have a virulent enough case that will require intensive medical care or hospitalization, and only a minority of those will lose their life. Most, we believe, will recover just fine. So the folks who are at risk of a very serious outcome are a subset of a subset of a subset of folks who are exposed to the virus. The problem right now is that we don’t have a definitive grasp on these percentages. So we all need to do everything that we can not just to limit exposure and transmission but to strengthen ourselves to withstand the natural course of infection and disease. Epidemiologists call this “host resistance.”


Q. What can we do to strengthen our resistance to the infection and the disease? How does faith figure into this?


LEVIN: We know from decades of research that so many things that we can do in our daily lives can help us to withstand and recover from illness. We can eat right — avoid junk food and overeating and consuming toxins. We should avoid smoking and abusing alcohol, we need to get enough sleep and manage our stress, we need to get some exercise and fresh air. We all know all of this, but in difficult times it’s easy to fall into inaction and depression, which itself can depress the immune system and impair our ability to stay healthy or to recover.


One of the important things that we can do, and decades of research support this, is to maintain continuity in our spiritual life. Studies show that people with a strong ongoing faith commitment can marshal an ability to remain resilient and deal with stress and even have better medical outcomes. There is a longstanding research literature on the physical and mental health benefits of hope and optimism and positive attitudes, including in the context of one’s spiritual life, and including due to the tangible and emotional support that faith and being a part of faith communities give us. Faith matters. But this isn’t a magic bullet, and I want to be careful about overstating things. Folks who expect that by being a diligent Christian or Jew, believing in God, going to religious services — in person or online — showing strong faith, studying Scriptures regularly, that by doing all this somehow a pathogenic agent won’t enter their body or won’t cause signs or symptoms of disease — I think they’re laboring under some false expectations. They’re asking belief or faith to do things that are very difficult for me to envision. Maybe that’s just the scientist in me talking, although I too am a person of faith.


On the other hand, our faith can indeed be part of keeping us strong and helping us to recover. But we ought to combine expressions of faith with careful efforts to limit our exposure and contain the outbreak, and to wisely seek medical care if we start to not feel well. The Bible encourages us with verses like “put on the full armor of God,” but at the same time if you stand out in the pouring rain you can’t sanely expect not to get rained on.


Q. Will this outbreak lead to a resurgence of religious belief? Are there examples of this from history?


LEVIN: Yes, there are, but not necessarily in a positive way. Times of crisis like this, especially when people feel powerless and are receiving conflicting information, can lead to a dangerous flare-up of unwholesome religious sentiments, including scapegoating. Look at the Black Plague of the 14th century. From a third to over one half of Europe perished, and the one constant in every country affected by the epidemic, besides the millions of bodies piling up, was a consistent and organized effort to massacre Jews, who were blamed for the disease. Lest we think those days are behind us, look at how we responded to the brief Ebola crisis in the U.S. in 2014, which ramped up hatred toward Mexican immigrants. Or consider the present outbreak, and the terrible animosity directed at Asian Americans. We aren’t immune to this kind of behavior, especially when we feel a sense of dread or hopelessness or a sense that our prayers to God have failed and that we are receiving a divine chastisement or punishment. It’s easy then to lash out and try to identify a “demonic” source for our travail and try to seek vengeance. There is also precedent for waves of apocalypticism, fear that the end of the world is nigh. We saw this during the 1918 influenza pandemic, and it gave rise to much of the end-times thinking that persists to the present day. So faith can sustain us, even benefit us physiologically, but it can also embitter us and make us do evil or drive us to become obsessed or crazy.


Q. Are there other more positive ways that faith or spirituality come into play here?


LEVIN: Sure, I can think of a few. There’s a bioethical dimension. Our faith traditions remind us of our obligations to others, especially those in grave need who lack the requisite material or social resources to care for themselves. This outbreak is a social-justice teaching moment for us as a society, and along with the medical and public health dimensions there are profound lessons in moral theology to learn and act on. Will we slip into a xenophobic fear-based response, self-absorbed with our own personal needs, or will we use this time, this enforced vacation for so many of us, to reach out to those in need? I have strong opinions about this. We have been given an opportunity to be selfless and act lovingly toward others, to represent the best of what faith has to offer. Or we can choose to reinforce the most selfish and hateful and ungodly aspects of what humans are capable of. This is a choice facing every one of us.


There’s also a pastoral dimension here. Each of us, not just clergy or healthcare chaplains or pastoral counselors, has a role to play in offering consolation and reassurance to our fellow brothers and sisters. And also real, tangible assistance. Our family is Jewish, and we’re reminded in Exodus that we’ve been called to be “a nation of priests.” I think the same can be said for all of us, in our respective communities. We can also be thought of as a nation, or a community, of pastors. And in that role there is much for us to do. We can be a source of accurate information to counter the insidious memes circulating on social media. We can organize our neighbors and fellow congregants to provide help to people and families who need it. We can become leaders in our faith communities to help maintain study, prayer and worship activities while we are unable to attend church or synagogue. We can love and support those who are suffering and remind them of God’s love for us. These messages matter. Maybe it’s not realistic to expect them to cause a virus to not take hold or to become less virulent, but they can strengthen our ability to recover from this outbreak, both individually and as a community of people.


ABOUT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY

Baylor University is a private Christian University and a nationally ranked research institution. The University provides a vibrant campus community for more than 17,000 students by blending interdisciplinary research with an international reputation for educational excellence and a faculty commitment to teaching and scholarship. Chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas through efforts of Baptist pioneers, Baylor is the oldest continually operating University in Texas. Located in Waco, Baylor welcomes students from all 50 states and more than 90 countries to study a broad range of degrees among its 12 nationally recognized academic divisions.


Connect with:
Jeff Levin, Ph.D.

Jeff Levin, Ph.D.

University Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health

Biomedical scientist & religious scholar, with expertise in the interface of religion, science & medicine and the connection of body & mind

CoronavirusSocial and Epidemiologic Research on Judaism and Population healthTheories of Healing and the Work of HealersRole of Faith-Based Initiatives in Public Health and Healthcare PolicyReligion and Health

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Baylor University

5 min

Digital Dementia: Does Technology Use by ‘Digital Pioneers’ Correlate to Cognitive Decline?

As the first generation that interacted with digital technology reaches an age where dementia risks emerge, scientists have asked the question: Is there a correlation between digital technology use and an increased risk of dementia? With the phrases “brain rot” and “brain drain” circulating on social media, it would appear that most people would assume the answer is yes. However, a new study in Nature Human Behavior by neuroscientists at Baylor University and the University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School reveals the opposite – digital technologies are actually associated with reduced cognitive decline. The study – A meta-analysis of technology use and cognitive aging – was sparked by the ongoing concern about the passive activity of digital technologies and their relation to accelerating risks of dementia. Study co-authors are Jared F. Benge, Ph.D., clinical neuropsychologist and associate professor of neurology at Dell Medical School and UT Health Austin’s Comprehensive Memory Center within the Mulva Clinic for the Neurosciences, and Michael K. Scullin, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor. “You can flip on the news on just about any day and you’ll see people talking about how technologies are harming us,” Scullin said. “People often use the terms ‘brain drain’ and ‘brain rot,’ and now digital dementia is an emerging phrase. As researchers, we wanted to know if this was true.” The “digital dementia” hypothesis predicts that a lifetime of exposure to digital technology will worsen cognitive abilities. On the contrary, the study’s findings challenge this hypothesis, indicating instead that engagement with digital technology fosters cognitive resilience in these adults. Reviewing more than 136 studies with data that encompassed over 400,000 adults, and longitudinal studies with an average of 6 years of follow-up data, Scullin and Benge found compelling evidence that digital technology use is associated with better cognitive aging outcomes, rather than harm. The researchers’ study supported the “technological reserve” hypothesis, finding that digital technologies can promote behaviors that preserve cognition. In fact, their study revealed that digital technology use correlates with a 58% lower risk of cognitive impairment. This pattern of cognitive protection persisted when the researchers controlled for socioeconomic status, education, age, gender, baseline cognitive ability, social support, overall health, and engagement with mental activities like reading that might have explained the findings. Increase in problem-solving skills Scullin said that for some, these findings are surprising as technology use is often associated with being sedentary both physically and mentally. However, for the current generation of older adults who were introduced to the first technological advancements – computers, the Internet and smartphones – past their childhood, using technology is cognitively challenging because it is everchanging. “One of the first things that middle-age and older adults were saying is that ‘I’m so frustrated by this computer. This is hard to learn.’ That's actually a reflection of the cognitive challenge, which may be beneficial for the brain even if it doesn’t feel great in the moment.” Scullin said. Technology requires constant adaption, he said, such as understanding new software updates, troubleshooting Internet loss or filtering out website ads. “If you’re doing that for years and you’re really engaging with it, even though you might experience frustration, that may be a sign of you exercising your brain,” he said. Social connection Technology also enables communication and engagement like never before, which can expand opportunities for connectivity. Video calls, emails and messaging apps help maintain social networks, especially for people who would not otherwise regularly see their family members. “Now you can connect with families across generations,” Scullin said. “You not only can talk to them, you can see them. You can share pictures. You can exchange emails and it's all within a second or less. So that means there's a greater opportunity for decreasing loneliness.” Better social connectedness is a well-documented correlate of cognitive functioning in older adults, providing a link between decreased isolation from digital technologies and reduced risks of dementia. Impact of “digital scaffolding” A dementia diagnosis is indicated in part when cognitive changes lead to a loss of independence with daily tasks. Tools such as digital reminders, GPS navigation and online banking allow older adults to remain independent despite cognitive difficulties through digital scaffolding. According to the research article, this digital scaffold “facilitates better functional outcomes in older adults while general cognitive functioning declines.” Technologies can serve as a compensatory support system to maintain general independence and reduce the risk of a dementia diagnosis even with the presence of some cognitive decline. “As clinical practice continues to move toward an individualized, precision-medicine approach, it will be necessary for the field to identify for whom and for how long, such digital scaffolding is effective,” the researchers said. Promoting healthy technology use While Scullin recognizes the negative effects of technology, such as distracted driving or using technology over consistent face-to-face interaction, he also emphasizes how promoting a healthy use of digital tools in older adults is beneficial for their cognitive health. “If you have a parent or grandparent who’s just staying away from technology, maybe revisit that. Could they learn to use photo, messaging, or calendar apps on a smartphone or tablet? Start simple and be very patient while they learn,” he said. Social media use is another highly debated topic in terms of cognitive effects. While he says it’s hard to predict the cognitive effects of endlessly scrolling on TikTok, Scullin does argue that generating videos through creative cognition could be beneficial. In addition, he said that interacting with communities online can provide benefits by forming social connections. “We could spend a long time talking about all the specific ways in which technology use can be bad. However, the net effect since the 1990s has been positive for overall cognition in older adults,” he said. FUNDING The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (R01AG082783; M.K.S., J.F.B.). Michael Scullin was named Baylor’s inaugural Newsmaker of the Year in 2018, after his “to-do list” research was widely covered by media outlets, including ABC’s Good Morning America, TODAY.com, USA TODAY, Discover, LiveScience, HealthDay, BBC Radio and many more, reaching an international circulation and viewership of nearly 1 billion people. Looking to interview or chat with Michael Scullin? Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

2 min

Daylight Saving Time: Baylor Sleep Expert Offers Suggestions to Help Adjust to the Change

Daylight saving time, with its one-hour spring forward at 2 a.m. Sunday, March 12, may seem like a small shift of just a single hour, but on a societal level, it has startling effects, says Baylor University sleep researcher Michael Scullin, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology and neuroscience and director of the Sleep Neuroscience and Cognition Laboratory at Baylor. So what are the consequences of this one-hour time shift on our sleep quality and how can we quickly adjust when springing our clocks forward? "Many people not only lose that single hour of sleep," Scullin said, "but also have difficulty over several subsequent nights adjusting their circadian rhythms to the new bed-wake time schedules." For example, parents who have routine bedtimes for their children experience difficulty for the whole family because children will not want to (or be able to) go to bed one hour earlier than their body is used to. "When you couple this bedtime difficulty with the fact that most people have morning school and work schedules that require them to wake up at a set time," Scullin said, "it becomes clear that ‘springing forward’ has a larger consequence than skipping a single hour." The consequences of the spring daylight saving time shift are well documented. Researchers have observed changes in cognitive functioning, increased driving accidents, moodiness and willingness to punish others for mistakes. "Researchers have also documented that acute sleep loss and circadian dysregulation lead to an increase in cardiovascular events," Scullin said. "If someone's cardiovascular health is ‘borderline’ then the springtime shift can be the factor that precipitates a stroke or a myocardial infarction (heart attack)." Scullin offers some simple suggestions to anticipate and adapt to the spring forward shift: Adjust in advance. About a week before the "spring forward," go to bed 15 or 20 minutes earlier each day. Avoid long naps during the day. If you need a nap, take it earlier in the day and for no more than 20 minutes. Bring on the sunlight. Getting more natural sunlight in the morning hours is very beneficial in resetting our biological clock. In some cases, evening melatonin also can help people to adapt to the time change. Scullin has published numerous studies focusing on sleep and brain function, including the connection between sleep and creativity, musical “earworms” and their effect on sleep and how writing a to-do list before you turn in for the night can help you get better sleep. In fact, Scullin was named Baylor’s inaugural Newsmaker of the Year in 2018, after his “to-do list” research was widely covered by media outlets, including ABC’s Good Morning America, TODAY.com, USA TODAY, Discover, LiveScience, HealthDay, BBC Radio and many more, reaching an international circulation and viewership of nearly 1 billion people. Looking to interview or chat with Michael Scullin? Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

4 min

Defining Oligarchy: The Fusion of Wealth and Power in American Democracy

Oligarchy is being thrown around a lot these days. But what does the term mean? Is America an oligarchy? And how does oligarchy help explain American democracy today? Political rhetoric scholar Luke Winslow, Ph.D., associate professor of communication at Baylor University and author of  “Oligarchy in America: Power, Justice, and the Rule of the Few,” has traced the evolution of oligarchy in the United States to shed light on how modern oligarchy is reshaping America through the increasing fusion of economic power and political influence. Winslow’s research focuses on how the influence of oligarchy has impacted American political rhetoric, as well as how it is showing up in modern politics and political communications. Defining Oligarchy Oligarchy is a term that most people associate with other countries, but it “is not something that just happens in Russia. It's something that happens everywhere, and it always has,” Winslow said. In the simplest of terms, oligarchy attempts to explain the convergence of economic and political power. Winslow offered four key distinctions on oligarchy: Oligarchy is exclusive. It represents a form of governance focused on preserving the political and economic influence of the wealthy by securing the approval of the rest of the population. “It assumes not everyone is qualified to deliberate, participate and legislate,” Winslow said. When it comes to oligarchy, there is a belief that extreme wealth is equated to intellectual fitness across all domains, including governance. Wealth vs. income. It is important to distinguish between wealth and income. Income covers daily expenses, whereas wealth is more easily used to exert political power. “What truly sets an oligarch apart is the political power their wealth can command,” Winslow said. Understated and subtle. Modern oligarchy operates through persuasion by “enticing rather than commanding citizens and maintaining what seems like an absence from political authority,” Winslow said. It is in this absence that oligarchs can influence indirect political actions, especially since they are not (typically) elected officials and cannot be removed from office. Legal Immunity. Oligarchs have no fear of legal consequences because oligarchy itself is not against the law, Winslow said. The First Amendment protects the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” legitimizing lobbying and campaign donations. A robust system of campaign contributions and political lobbying – both of which are perfectly legal – can shape media narratives and put pressure on state and local governments. While wealth and politics have always coexisted, oligarchy is about how these forces merge to create a system where the ultra-rich exert undue influence over democratic institutions, Winslow said. “This convergence has long existed in history but is now unfolding in the U.S. more visibly – and perhaps more accepted – than ever before,” he said. Communication of Oligarchy Winslow’s research shows that American society has come to view billionaires as transcendent figures – individuals whose success in business qualifies them to lead in politics – a mindset that is not new. The Gilded Age of the late 19th century saw figures like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller wield enormous economic and political power, shaping legislation to favor their interests. Winslow’s research traces this historical precedent, suggesting that today’s tech titans are the latest iteration of a long-standing trend. Perhaps the most intriguing question Winslow raises is not just how oligarchy and its fusion of wealth and governance has taken root, but why the American public has been so willing to accept it as natural – perhaps even beneficial. “The arguments being made in public discourse encourage us to go along with it,” he said. “We’re being told, implicitly, that this is just how things work now.” Yet, these practices also reveal how the government serves the narrow interests of the ultra-wealthy, diverting resources from productive economic opportunities for the majority toward political wins that benefit a small, affluent minority, Winslow said. “What's so interesting about oligarchy now is that the cover has been ripped off, the veil has been thrown open and we’re not even hiding the fact that money gets you more influence,” he said. Ultimately, Winslow hopes his work will get people to be curious as to why Americans are now accepting oligarchy in the U.S. “The ways that the extremely wealthy are yielded political power is seemingly acceptable now, and that is a question that we all should be asking,” Winslow said. Looking to know more? Then let us help. To connect with Luke Winslow, simply contact Shelby Cefaratti-Bertin, M.A, Assistant Director of Media and Public Relations now to arrange an interview today.

View all posts
Powered by