The virus is infecting the world. COVID-19 is not only conquering physical bodies but also changing the way we think. Interaction between thoughts and microbes can challenge the sanity of people still mentally rooted in the 20th century, diminishing common sense of responsible health practices. National governance measures have proved ineffective in some cases. But a few countries, including China, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), are learning and adapting eagerly. While the virus weakens bodies, the epidemic is affecting how we think, talk and act. In our networked cyber society, the front lines of disease control have become a culture struggle.

A sort of “emotional panic virus” has spread. Wild speculation about the causes of the outbreak has run rampant and absurd accusations have been tossed out against authorities as scapegoats have emerged and misinformation has disturbed social peace and delayed necessary measures. The nature of unclear health risks creates great uncertainty. Our social guidance systems including schools and governance provide orientation and certainty so citizens can trust the institutions. However, COVID-19 has been spread by human activity alone, and each member of society bears some individual responsibility.

Hardly anything is as subtle, powerful and uncontrollable as such a virus. This situation warrants highly orchestrated strategies. The only path forward is solidarity and respectful cooperation of all people globally. Mistakes shine light on areas in need of learning and reforms because the next epidemic is already lurking.

Greater focus on responsible public behavior by experts, officials and pundits will significantly enhance mankind’s ability to adapt to different global challenges and conflicts. The new disease is now called “COVID-19.” The name deliberately captures standardization of research and demands further clarification to counteract irrational reactions. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus explicitly warned against incitement, discrimination and misinformation related to the virus. The new term is free of blame, politics or nationality and only begs for action. To liberate humanity from infighting and foster greater solidarity to confront the disease as one force, we should integrate global social and biological capacity in terms of health resources.

The WHO emphasized that the most serious “illness” connected to COVID-19 is the infodemic: information prematurely released or poorly explained. The digital social sphere fosters the greatest share of modern communication, and it blurs the lines between authorities, social groups and individuals, making information more difficult to verify. When individuals cease to behave in a healthy manner and let instinct take over, only biology will dictate what happens in the bodies and affects everyone else. When overwhelmed with data we cannot process, panic conquers our ability to do the right thing.

Notably, addressing the physical side of the epidemic is well in hand. The global medical community and authorities around the world are working day and night, so everyone else should comply with recommendations to observe hygiene and proper nourishment. But have we learned to prevent and cure the social and moral cancers the disease has brought to light before they mushroom into global issues that jeopardize peace and create even worse existential threats than a microbe? In our cooperative social division of labor, are we doing enough to integrate science and medicine to foster tranquility of the mind? Only a new culture for collaborative prevention can accomplish this and promote health on the social and individual scale, increase health literacy and solidify social stability. Control cannot be left to authorities or technology alone. Modern global health demands development of a trans-disciplinary effort with the objective of making citizens responsible agents instead of just passive patients.

How should language be used to describe the situation? We distinguish social groups such as wealthy and poor, men and women, healthy and ill. In context of disease, these are often confused or superseded by biological correlatives. For epidemiological strategy, it is crucial that common languages prevail, to present the social and practical rationality embedded in information. For example, to determine the probability of dying from COVID-19, one must account for male-female distribution of cases but also the fact that most male fatalities have been smokers. Gender cannot be controlled, but tobacco consumption certainly can. Proper information about the possible effects of human decisions opens options for behavioral changes. Such factors become even more compelling when it is clarified that intake of tobacco (for respiratory conditions) or sugar (for diabetics) determine the odds of dying from COVID-19 more than gender or ethnicity.

It is important to realize that changing perceptions are far from trivial. Describing social reality through a biological lens reduces humanity to medical objects. We cannot build social rules through a microscope. If individual connection, social roles and economic fairness are not immediately evident to the actor, the value of health remains abstract. We risk spreading ambiguity in terms of practical information for individuals such as prioritizing and targeting health behavior and changing routines. Prescriptions for social and personal health resilience are usually far less dramatic than alarmist messaging: Be considerate and avoid all unnecessary or potentially unhealthy behavior in all areas including food, waste, consumption, mobility and interaction. Take care and act as a decent citizen, continuously. Success hinges on adherence, not compliance.

The notions of health literacy and responsible citizens are crucial for prevention because sane action requires context awareness. Education enables navigation of conditions involving unclear risk and uncertain prospects. Actions taken in the name of hygiene can be useless or even detrimental to health and safety. For example, loading up on protective masks and stockpiling of disinfectants have created intense scarcity and resulted in shortages that undermine trust in health infrastructure. Responsibility suggests proportional distribution so devices and resources can reach the people who can do the most with them. Individuals should consider waiving opportunity for perceived increased security in favor of the uncertain benefit of anonymous others.

Responsibility reverses complacency. While compliance involves some understanding of what should be done according to regulations, adherence is the result of more profound understanding: As a citizen, I know why this is the right thing to do, even if it does not benefit me personally and immediately. It is not easy to see the damage caused by irresponsible behavior or the benefits of a shift from obeying commands to doing the right thing independently. But the transformation can be smoothed through communication, education and incentives designed to promote conscientious behavior instead of panic.

Most current measures are designed for immediate response to contain the spread of the virus. We must buy time to get better. We need time for vaccines and improved health infrastructures as well as governance. However, time is a valuable resource for many reasons. Rather than wait to be saved, citizens should embrace a helping role. Such behavior is subtle and sustainable. While we endeavor to better understand how the virus weakens the strong and kills the weak, everyone can do more to become a less attractive host and spreader. Focus on what goes on between our heads and hands. The virus is an opportunist and subject to scientific scrutiny. But humans are free to make their own reasonable and responsible choices. Reason is subject to neither science nor the virus. We can do more than just wait out the storm.

The deliberate changes the virus has provoked in our lifestyles are blending with many already known to be needed for other macro-challenges such as climate change, environmental destruction, poverty and inequity. The United Nations has clearly outlined strategies to foster a better future ranging from the 17 Sustainable Development Goals to the Decades of Ocean Science and Ecosystem Restoration. These will affect our industries. Tobacco and fossil fuels will be remembered as relics of the dirty industries of the 19th and 20th centuries after going obsolete alongside habits that propagated deadly viruses. The silver lining may be that entrepreneurs in the real economy are becoming even more entrepreneurial as they adapt, innovate and transform.

Today’s global health perspective reminds us that the world is round. Eventually, small actions accumulate into something we embrace or fear. There is much we can do to create a better outcome. Humanity’s ultimate concern should be strengthening holistic health resilience. Viruses will always be with us, as they always have been. Whether or not we optimize human behavior is in our hands.

The author is an accomplished philosopher, sinologist and global health ethicist. He lives and works in Berlin and Hong Kong. Recently, he co-founded the European Centre for Chinese T