According to reports, the COVID-19 pandemic was one of the most challenging circumstances the federal government and American residents had to handle. People were anxious about the situation, which made it necessary for the federal government to take action to protect them from the pandemic’s impacts. These decisions aligned with The World Health Organization guidelines, which developed protection standards on how people and governments should handle the issue and reduce its spread. Some key actions that the federal government enacted included the restriction on travel to and from China, the order to stay inside, social segregation, extensive testing, and the proclamation of an emergency.
The thought errors the federal government made while attempting to devise solutions to save the citizens were mirrored in every choice. In their first step to resolve the issue the federal government prohibited on travel from China as an advisory from the, White House Coronavirus Task Force. Indeed, the administration was in a panic as the pandemic continued to worsen, when the travel ban was implemented, making the choice a product of the destructive thought trap (Carter & May 2020). In this it is evident that, the government’s perception of the situation worsening over time reflects the catastrophic thinking trap (Yamey & Gonsalves, 2020). They projected a cataclysmic future in which they would be unable to handle the reality of the situation. Although the pandemic was not at its peak then, the government exaggerated the impacts and outcomes, passing laws that impacted on peoples social and economic life. The ban on travel from China, the pandemic’s epicenter, resulted in many people losing contact with their loved ones (Wu et al., 2021). Citizens would have been in a better position to stay with their loved ones and learn to deal with the difficulty brought on by the pandemic if it were not for the catastrophic thinking trap.
Additionally, the federal and state government decided that people should stay inside. The authorities realized the virus affected a more significant portion of the nation due to transmissions in various locations. Due to the limited testing available then, it was decided to forbid individuals from going outside and practicing social isolation to prevent the pandemic from spreading quickly (Carter & May 2020). The necessity for them to stay inside stems from the fact that the elderly and those with health issues were said to be the most susceptible to the outbreak. According to reports, the health of the elderly was rapidly declining and would be readily destroyed by the epidemic. The federal government considered the choice the best option as it prevented further spreading of the pandemic.
However, labeling thinking trap influenced this choice. Instead of identifying someone’s issue and addressing it, those who fall into the labeling thinking trap plaster them with a bad label (Wu et al., 2021). These individuals suffered from the decision’s adverse effects, including isolation (Gallois & Liu, 2021). They had to adhere to these laws that the federal government had imposed because it was determined that they were highly susceptible to the disease. Also, the federal government developed social distancing to implement the WHO’s recommendations. The recommendation required individuals to maintain a meter distance from one another to avoid spreading the virus. The social distance impacted the residents since they were not accustomed to such circumstances of being apart from one another, even during their daily lives (Sahu & Kumar, 2020). The epidemic harmed the people because of the decisions that made life more difficult for them. The over-generalization thinking trap characterized the decision to distance oneself from social situations. The federal administration assumed that the virus affected everyone. Moreover, they gave the pandemic a lousy reputation by expressing the possibility of a recurrence (Gallois & Liu, 2021).
The federal government also implemented mass testing because they believed it was the best method for halting the pandemic’s spread. The epidemic was believed to be on the rise when quick testing occurred, necessitating the government’s search for solutions to contain the issue (Yamey & Gonsalves, 2020). In order to act more quickly, the government would be able to use mass testing to determine the pace of spread and the number of infected individuals. The government had to make these decisions to ensure they reduced the struggle and terror the outbreak was causing in the populace, but it was a manifestation of the control fallacy thinking trap (Sahu & Kumar, 2020). The government believed people had little influence over their fate because of the circumstances and the erroneous thinking trap. The government perceived itself as the primary controller of the issue, with the people having no way of regulating their battle, and this common perception of the people having no control was an example of an external control fallacy (Wang et al., 2020). Also, the government adopted the internal fallacious thinking trap that led them to accept responsibility for the pandemic, so they proposed mass testing to lessen the suffering they had to endure.
In conclusion, the pandemic’s rise is described as a challenging struggle requiring the federal government to devise solutions. The epidemic has numerous repercussions on people’s lives and the economy’s health. The residents struggled greatly and were distressed since they could not improve their quality of life. The federal government assumed control of the situation while falling victim to many thinking pitfalls, including emotive reasoning, overgeneralizations, fallacious thinking, catastrophic thinking, and labeling thinking. These cognitive fallacies were shown to be fundamental in managing the many decisions the government made to address the issues of the populace.
Thinking Traps
The public looks to their elected leaders for solutions and hope during crises. In March 2021, the federal government enacted the American Rescue Plan to address rising COVID-19 infections, which affected people’s daily lives and livelihoods (ARP). President Biden presented the $1.9 trillion American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan to shield the US economy from the COVID-19 epidemic and help vulnerable households weather the long-term economic downturn. The ARP was designed by the U.S. government to change the epidemic’s course, boost the economy, and address racial inequality. The ARP promoted a statewide immunization program, accessible healthcare for working families, unemployment insurance expansion, and minimum wage increases in COVID-19-stricken areas.
The scheme saved 14,000 lives, increased the economy by 5.7%, and provided middle-class tax relief (House Budget Committee, 2022). In March 2021, ARP ratified, COVID-19-related long-term unemployment reached a record high. By February 2020, 12 months after ARP was passed, unemployment had dropped by 80% (Sperling, 2022). Long-term unemployment declined at its fastest rate in ten months, the largest drop in seven decades (Sperling, 2022). The ARP improved circumstances for inexperienced workers, especially underrepresented racial as well as ethnic groups without four-year degrees. ARP leveled the field for new entrants, strengthening the job market. Hispanic and African-American unemployment and child poverty have plummeted.
The ARP reduced health risks as well as closed the achievement gap for children. It helped cut medical costs and expanded health insurance. After the plan launched and returning customers’ rates dropped 50%, 14.5 million Americans joined in the ACA marketplace, a record high (The White House, 2022). The ARP saved DC and 20 other states $75 per month. After a COVID-19 outbreak, the ARP expedited school returns, issued 200 million immunizations, and offered 375 million at-home tests each month. The plan’s child tax credit expansion helped 40 million households, reducing child poverty to a historic low in 2021 (The White House, 2022). Housing assistance helped homeless veterans and marginalized populations.
Cognitive biases plagued federal ARP investments. ARP passage psychological traps include the recallability trap. The “recallability trap” is the inclination to base key decisions on emotional memories (Sperling, 2022). The recallability trap makes individuals overestimate the likelihood of a catastrophe. It hinders the decision maker’s objective evaluation of past occurrences. The federal government determined ARP amounts for affected individuals, organizations, and regions based on prior severe economic downturns. The federal government feared a COVID-19 crisis like the 1980s and 2007-2008 Great Recession. During the early 1980s economic recession, youth unemployment reached 19% in 1982 and remained over 13% until late 1986. (Sperling, 2022). Throughout the 1980s, high unemployment increased mortality, homelessness, foreclosures, evictions, poverty, and wealth disparities. The ARP was defeated due to concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic could cause consistently high youth unemployment rates like those of the 1980s and 2007–2009 Great Recession. Policymakers worried that the COVID-19 recession would hurt newcomers’ job prospects.
Anchoring traps is also common and evident in the American Rescue Plan allocations. Anchoring traps takes place when former thoughts outweigh present ones (Hammond et al., 2013). Based on income inequality and healthcare performance, the federal government spent a lot of ARP funds on working families and healthcare access. The outbreak accelerated federal minimum wage and small business financing initiatives. Before the pandemic, President Biden promoted inclusive economic growth. Since the outbreak disproportionately affected low-income communities and working families, a special fund was created to help them immediately. Government authorities concerned that if drastic steps weren’t done to resuscitate the economy, protect healthcare workers, and restore assistance programs for the poor, long-term unemployment trends from prior economic downturns could return. All sides supported supporting working families during the outbreak. Some nations took considerable COVID-19 precautions. States conducted partial lockdowns, obligatory drills, extracurricular activity suspensions, and mask use. Pandemics have mental hazards.
Pennsylvania’s governor mandated masks in schools in August 2021 to comply with federal pandemic mitigation guidelines (Slotnik, 2021). Pennsylvania required all students, teachers, employees, and visitors to wear masks. The state’s mask requirement fell into the caution trap, the desire to unduly cautiously safeguard residents from harm (Hammond et al., 2013). The governor took these school safety measures because no COVID-19 authorizations had been obtained for pupils under 12. Despite little scientific evidence, the governor was too cautious. The GOP called it a civil liberties violation.
Leaders might fall into mental traps that distort their judgment, especially in difficult times. The COVID-19 pandemic forced all governments to respond. The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan was a federal stimulus program that helped working and impoverished families, expanded vaccines, as well as improved healthcare. Health insurance, child poverty, and low-income households were improved. Anchoring, overconfidence, and poor recollection affect allocation choices (Hammond et al., 2013). It is evident that the pandemic responses followed federal guidelines. For student safety, Pennsylvania requires face masks in schools but the Pennsylvania Republicans opposed ARP mask policy.
