However, the precautionary approach is actually rooted in the philosophical concepts of human reasoning under uncertainty. The same approach has uses beyond the environment, and can also be applied against unknown dangers like COVID-19.

There was heated debate around March 2020 as to whether healthy people should wear masks. National authorities, including our own health minister, stated that wearing masks was required only for those who were sick.

International authorities like the World Health Organization (WHO) also refrained from recommending mandatory mask wearing except in certain settings. Although abundant research was available on mask wearing, the international scientific community was divided at that time with respect to the benefits of wearing masks in preventing the spread of COVID-19.

How should a people, a country or an institution decide when scientific consensus is lacking on a particular matter? The correct response is to adopt a cost-effective preventative measure to prevent any potential dangers.

Some argued at the time that the “scientific evidence” for wearing masks was insufficient, and therefore people shouldn’t be required to wear masks. This is flawed reasoning. If we were wrong that wearing masks did not prevent transmission, it would only cost us the price of a mask. But if we were right that wearing masks did indeed prevent transmission but we did not wear them, it could potentially cost us our lives.

Thus, the cost of being wrong far outweighs the cost of being right. In other words, in cases like these, it is more reasonable to err on the side of caution.

When dealing with “unknowns” like COVID-19, people should reasonably increase the level of precaution to a maximum and gradually decrease the level of precaution as new knowledge becomes available. This concept has been actually applied as a principle of precautionary regulation as regards dangerous chemicals in some fields. The same principle could be applied in decision-making at the individual or institutional level.

Frequent disinfection of personal items would thus be reasonable at the pandemic’s outset since fomite transmission (via contaminated surfaces and objects) seemed likely at that time. As new knowledge arrived, however, we learned that such a likelihood was very small and as such, now we can relax such behavior.

It is important to stress that the level of “unknown” is pertinent when it comes to the new coronavirus variants. With the recent rise of the Delta variant, there are new debates on whether double masking can be beneficial, while some have cast doubt over the effectiveness of certain rapid test methods and others argue that transmission can occur in mere seconds.

Even in countries with speedier vaccination rates and vaccines of higher efficacy, there are pros and cons about reimposing and using nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as mask wearing and social distancing, as there is a possibility that the Delta variant’s transmission rate could beat the vaccination rate.

Again, we are presented with some level of uncertainty, although for now, it is of a lower degree compared to the beginning of the pandemic.

In this situation, the same precautionary approach should prevail: people, the state and institutions should opt for the lower-cost alternative to prevent danger.

The cost element becomes even more complicated in terms of state policy. In countries where masks are scarce, for example, it is only reasonable that those governments require the wearing of medical-grade mask for health professionals, the sick and vulnerable populations.

Stronger restrictions like lockdowns may incur relatively low costs for the middle to upper classes, but may have severe consequences for the economy as a whole in developing countries. As such, the official policies and recommendations may sometimes contradict individual health objectives.

Institutions could have more flexibility in weighing precautionary policies than the state, and should treat their employees as assets, as expertise and education is very expensive and hard to replace. COVID-19 is a danger to that asset. Thus, working from home is much more in alignment with the precautionary approach.

The benefits of working in the office for jobs that can be done from home simply do not justify the risk. Besides this, institutions should view workplace COVID-19 transmission as a systemic risk to their operations. This is especially important, as the new variants can spread more easily in offices and shut down operations in a matter of days.

At the personal level, the precautionary approach should be regarded as an ethical or a moral obligation. This means that those who take higher precautions in light of the absence of scientific consensus are acting in a morally responsible manner.

There are obstacles to applying the approach. At the institutional level, organizational culture is the primary barrier. Some people are not accustomed to teleconferencing and require in-person meetings. Some institutions, especially governmental institutions, including the courts, may have slow internet connections, and institutions simply have difficulties adapting to change.

As for individuals, one obstacle is likely personal beliefs. Precautionary thinking is a bit more complicated than simple risk assessment, as it involves decision-making under uncertainty (Wibisana, 2008). In Indonesia, it is sometimes even difficult to convince people to mitigate risk in situations where the causal relation to danger is clear, for example, not wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle.

Islam, for example, encourages both ikhtiar (make a serious effort) and tawakkal (trust in God’s plan) among adherents. It is a religious tenet that God will not change the condition of a people before they change themselves. However, it seems that some people tend to emphasize the tawakkal approach while downplaying ikhtiar.

Islamic law actually contains several concepts, such as Sadd al-Ḏh̲arāʾiʿ (closing means that can lead to evil), which is thought to derive from the principle of maslaha (the public good). According to some scholars, the precautionary approach is very much in alignment with these concepts. It is therefore crucial for the government to engage in communication with Islamic clerics and intellectuals to try and instill precautionary ethics among the population.

In practice, this means that all types of nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as mask wearing, social distancing and WFH, should be internalized as forms of ikhtiar. Opting for cost-effective alternatives to prevent danger to oneself and others, or precautionary ethics, is also a form of ikhtiar.

It is my belief that in addition to tawakkal, people will be judged in the afterlife according to their ikhitiar, which also includes how they use their aql (rational intellect).

 ***

The writer is director of the Center for Regulation, Policy and Governance (CRPG).