Esteban Nicholls2026-03-222026-03-22202410.4236/jss.2024.128008https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2024.128008https://andeanlibrary.org/handle/123456789/75587My aim in this paper is to ask whether anxiety or fear would incentivise change when facing global problems. In the context of the SARS-CoV-2, I shall analyze the pandemic in the context of the ontological in structural, institutional and behavioral settings. Given that pandemics occur sparsely I have employed analytical theoretical construction, some statistical comparison and transcendental arguments in a logical nest of analytic inferences. I should note that I am not interested in what the wake of the pandemic looks like. This paper is about is to do so I appeal, in general terms on the philosophy or Martin Heidegger. Along the same lines, this time following Anthony Giddens, I argue, contrary to what many ascertain, that anxiety is a force which pushes people to want to return to normalcy; and fear to change. For example, Agamben argues that emergencies [fear] push for a return to normalcy and a state of exception is there to change in a systemic order. Again, I disagree, I posit that COVID-19 showed that fear is a more powerful engine of change. Anxiety which is stronger than fear to the contrary is that the strongest force to element to propel a return to normalcy is anxiety not fear. This paradox is what this paper’s primoradial wants to contribute. Ontological dissonance or existential threats put into question our ability to be-in the world. What I would posit is that emergencies may lead to change while anxiety leads to stagnation and useless attempts to return to a pre-pandemic world.enCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Anxiety2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPsychologySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)article