The Eck’s Factor: Mental health statistics do not exist to be weaponized

A high schooler from my hometown addressed an open letter to the governor of New Mexico via social media: “When you sent your mandate that soccer wouldn’t happen this fall, it not only broke my heart but many other players’ as well.”

Her feelings were beyond valid. “Senior soccer season is a rite of passage, something we dream of and see in movies.” She ultimately prompted: “Have you considered what damage this is doing to teenager’s minds?”

The letter incited massive controversy, with many, including myself, noting its insensitive and privileged undertones. Surprisingly, or should I say inevitably, numerous bystanders jumped to her defense, including several adults. 

“We need more young leaders like this.” “Worth the read. Give the kids their senior year.” ”Isolation isn’t the answer, kids need these activities for their well being…” 

I have noticed a paradigm among these counterarguments to coronavirus safety restrictions. Based on social media, the majority find quarantining inconvenient to say the least, but several have gone so far as to bolster their perspectives by highlighting the negative consequences of social isolation, including rising mental health and substance abuse issues. 

However, instead of putting forth these issues to propose a solution that doesn’t compromise public safety, this subgroup utilizes mental health statistics to argue against quarantines. This paradoxical approach ostensibly stresses “compassion,” yet subverts the death toll of a global contagion and its aftermath. We should certainly prioritize mental health issues right now, but we need not weaponize them. 

To preface this argument, I want to emphasize that concerns about mental health as a result of the coronavirus are of utmost significance. Mental disorders such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder tend to surge in the wake of natural disasters and the coronavirus is no exception to this pattern. To reiterate, I am not writing this to undermine anybody’s struggle. 

However, waging two public health issues against each other is counterintuitive, especially when concerns about mental health are consistently brushed under the rug when there is no global pandemic. Mental illness has always been a public health crisis, yet it’s repeatedly undermined and stigmatized. 

For instance, every time a mass shooting occurs, pro-gun activists are the first to argue that it is people, not guns, that do the killing. In this case, psychosis and lunacy are pinned as the culprits and mental health is — no pun intended — weaponized to argue against common-sense gun regulations. 

Although this logic seeks to amend violence, it ultimately perpetuates the stigma of mental illness. These arguments illuminate a fallacy that labels all mass shooters as “mentally ill” and the media consequently sensationalizes mental illness as terrorizing. 

However, a majority of people with mental illnesses do not display violent behavior. In fact, few mass shooters have a history of severe psychiatric illness, yet 38% have a history of committing domestic abuse. Plus, individuals with serious mental illness are responsible for less than 3% of all violence, and they are actually 10 times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population. 

Not to mention the fact that gun rights advocates label mental health as the problem, yet no efforts are made to expand mental health care. Instead, the Grand Old Party continually works to cut Medicaid — the largest source of funding for mental health care in the United States. Ultimately, it just uses mental health as a scapegoat to deflect from the real issue of gun violence. 

Regarding the coronavirus, arguing in favor of lifting safety restrictions because of “mental health” digresses from the government’s lackadaisical response to the pandemic; after all, the United States leads the world in coronavirus cases. This argument is not only grossly misplaced but also insensitive to those, including myself, who struggle with a psychiatric illness every day. Masquerading a lack of compassion with superficial concerns is offensive — our illnesses do not exist as a facade to own guns or curtail pandemic restrictions. 

So how do we balance concerns about mental health with coronavirus safety? First of all, we must acknowledge the prevalence of mental illness outside of psychologically distressing events like a pandemic. Yes, cases of anxiety and depression are on the rise. Yes, there are potentially harmful implications, academically and emotionally, for students not being able to experience a normal day inside and outside the classroom. 

However, there is also a virulent, uncontained disease in the United States. The answer to these concerns is not a return to normalcy. Experiencing a life before the coronavirus again will not assuage these climbing numbers related to mental health but only magnify coronavirus infection rates, as evidenced by universities that have reopened. It will likely contribute to more psychological stress, not alleviate it. 

Instead of weaponizing statistics, maybe we should try weaponizing common sense and authentic solutions — practicing mindfulness, staying connected virtually, expanding mental health care, decriminalizing psychiatric illness and practicing socially distanced activities to protect others’ health. That sounds like true compassion to me.

Matthew Eck  is a junior writing about culturally relevant social issues. His column, “The Eck’s Factor,” runs every other Wednesday.