Public Policy

Trying to Lock Down Until COVID is Eradicated Would Be Dangerous Folly

January 25, 2021 3482
(Photo: Whispyhistory/CC BY-SA 4.0)

I learned an important thing from working with Jonathan Van Tam, the UK deputy chief medical officer: “Never begin an intervention,” he used to say, “unless you are sure how and when to end it.” A big problem of COVID-19 management in the UK has been its lack of clarity about precisely this: when do we stop lockdowns, face coverings and social distancing, and dial our lives back to 2019?

As the vaccination program rolls out, the average risk of serious illness or death for anyone in the UK is falling very rapidly. This process is being accelerated by the introduction of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine and the decision to give first doses to as many people as possible.

No current vaccine has been shown to stop transmission of the infection, which is why vaccination passports are pointless. If you do get infected, though, vaccination means that you are very unlikely to need hospitalization and even less likely to die.

Well before the end of Phase 1 – sometime hopefully in late March or April – vaccinated people will have little more risk of serious illness or death than a healthy 16 to 60-year old. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there have been fewer than 400 deaths in that group.

The risk of “Long COVID” is real but should not be exaggerated. Many reported cases can be explained in one of two ways. First, the easy availability of antibiotics over the last 70 years has led us to forget how long recovery can take from any infection that has a big impact on the immune system. Viral infections cannot be treated with antibiotics and “post-viral syndrome” is well recognized.

Second, the physical consequences of any prolonged period under sedation in intensive care can be confused with the impact of COVID-19. Muscles deteriorate very quickly and psychological distress is common. Thankfully, the vaccine program will greatly reduce the numbers of people who have to experience intensive care.

The challenge that faces us as a society now is to decide between two views of the future. Are we going to try to pursue the elimination of Covid-19 within the UK, regardless of the social and economic cost, or are we going to decide on what we consider to be a tolerable level of deaths in order to enable a return to the life we considered normal before 2020? With the extension of the tier system across much of the country yesterday and warnings that schools could be closed until February, with a disastrous effect on children, it is clear that this is a debate that needs to be had urgently. The sooner we can begin to dismantle restrictions, the better.

The chief medical officer, professor Chris Whitty, pressed the need for such a debate during evidence he gave to the science and technology select committee on December 9. “At a certain point, society, through political leaders, elected ministers and Parliament,” he said, would have to decide on what is an appropriate level of risk, “just as we accept that in an average year 7,000 die of flu and in a bad flu year 20,000 people die of flu.” He also recognized that it was “very unlikely that we will get to a zero level of risk,” and that deciding the level of COVID we are willing to accept relative to the damage that is being done to society and the economy is ultimately a political question and not one that could or should be left to medics and doctors.

He is far from alone in holding such a view. Dr Michael Ryan, head of the World Health Organisation Emergencies Programme, agreed, in an end of year message, that societies would do better to focus on getting back to full strength, rather than on the “moonshot of eradication.”

Unfortunately, a significant faction of medics and scientists do not seem to agree. Their goal is to eliminate respiratory infections – even one as trivial as COVID-19 will be in a post-vaccine world. It is possible that we could abolish this cause of death by continuing the restrictions of 2020 indefinitely – the problem, of course, is that we would simply die from something else.

The scientists who support such a strategy are genuinely trying to make the world a better place according to their ideals. But their vision is of a future where people walk every day in fear for their lives. The rest of us should not accept this.

The experienced clinicians that I have been lucky to work with over the last 50 years share Prof Whitty’s more balanced view. They know that they cannot deliver immortality and that quantity of life should not be confused with quality. I suspect many citizens will share that view. But if we want to turn the clock back to 2019, we cannot assume that this will happen unless our representatives demand that democracy prevails over iatocracy – rule by medics.

At some point, the Government has to say to some of its pandemic advisers: “Thank you for your service to the country – but it is time to go home.”


Robert Dingwall is professor of sociology at Nottingham Trent University and a member of government advisory groups. He is writing here in a personal capacity.


This article first appeared in the Daily Telegraph on January 1, 2021.

Robert Dingwall is an emeritus professor of sociology at Nottingham Trent University. He also serves as a consulting sociologist, providing research and advisory services particularly in relation to organizational strategy, public engagement and knowledge transfer. He is co-editor of the SAGE Handbook of Research Management.

View all posts by Robert Dingwall

Related Articles

Pandemic Nemesis: Illich reconsidered
News
June 14, 2024

Pandemic Nemesis: Illich reconsidered

Read Now
How ‘Dad Jokes’ Help Children Learn How To Handle Embarrassment
Insights
June 14, 2024

How ‘Dad Jokes’ Help Children Learn How To Handle Embarrassment

Read Now
Beyond Net-Zero Targets: When Do Companies Maximize Their Potential to Reduce Carbon Emissions?
Business and Management INK
June 4, 2024

Beyond Net-Zero Targets: When Do Companies Maximize Their Potential to Reduce Carbon Emissions?

Read Now
Rob Ford on Immigration
Public Policy
June 3, 2024

Rob Ford on Immigration

Read Now
Biden Administration Releases ‘Blueprint’ For Using Social and Behavioral Science in Policy

Biden Administration Releases ‘Blueprint’ For Using Social and Behavioral Science in Policy

U.S. President Joseph Biden’s administration has laid down a marker buttressing the use of social and behavioral science in crafting policies for the federal government by releasing a 102-page Blueprint for the Use of Social and Behavioral Science to Advance Evidence-Based Policymaking.

Read Now
Young Explorers Award Honors Scholars at Nexus of Life and Social Science

Young Explorers Award Honors Scholars at Nexus of Life and Social Science

Aiming to spur greater connections between the life and social sciences, Science magazine and NOMIS look to recognize young researchers through the NOMIS and Science Young Explorers Award.

Read Now
Tavneet Suri on Universal Basic Income

Tavneet Suri on Universal Basic Income

Economist Tavneet Suri discusses fieldwork she’s done in handing our cash directly to Kenyans in poor and rural parts of Kenya, and what the generally good news from that work may herald more broadly.

Read Now
5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Katy

So refreshing to read this article. Absolutely does not downplay severity of covid19 & long covid, whilst recognising the need to return to normality. Interesting on long-covid & comparison to recovery from other intense hospitalisations. My dad recovered from a heart attack & surgery in 2011 after a week in hospital. He was weak & it took him a long time to walk short distances. I certainly know it was tough in terms of his mental recovery, as I feel the mental scar takes healing too – perhaps this is like for covid19 too. I also feel we need to… Read more »