Offline: Science and Politics in the Age of COVID-19

“How can we follow science when scientists are not in the least bit confused?” “Loud Scientists Losing Trust in Ministers”. Headlines like these are becoming more and more common in UK newspapers. Scientists are no longer seen as providing impartial and independent advice to the government. They are held responsible for the collapse of economies, rising unemployment, and the ruin of livelihoods. Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, and Patrick Vallance, senior scientific adviser, have received the harshest criticism. But the attacks are now spreading to members of the scientific committees that advise the government. They are accused of leaking documents to journalists, promoting their personal views and collaborating with opposition political parties. The argument is that if a scientist is a member of a group that advises ministers, he has chosen to be part of the government team and must abide by a rule of collective responsibility. The breach of trust between scientists and politicians is so great that leading public health figures are being blocked from speaking to journalists, even on non-COVID-19 related topics.

The public is understandably wondering if there is another way to manage a resurgent pandemic. In March, we all feared a new virus that we barely understood. The blockade was accepted as the only way to cut transmission lines, save lives and protect the National Health Service. But now the public sees scientists disagreeing and organizing campaigns to endorse their respective positions: the Great Barrington Declaration versus the John Snow Memorandum. The attractive delusion that individual responsibility is the way out of our situation is being anticipated. A group of members of the House of Lords Conservative Party, led by science writer and journalist (Viscount) Matt Ridley, wrote in The times on October 10 that “Anyone who wishes to resume their normal life and take the risk of contracting the virus, must be free to do so.” But although opinions may vary, the facts are indisputable. The incidence of COVID-19 is increasing across the country in all age groups. We are moving from local conglomerates of infection to a generalized epidemic. R> 1 in most local authorities. Infections double every 7 to 14 days. Intensive care units are under pressure. The system for testing, tracing and isolating infected people is not working. Infection does not guarantee immunity. Long COVID-19 is cause for concern. More than 90% of the population is still susceptible to infection. And the burden of COVID-19 continues to fall on the most fragile and vulnerable in society. This disease cannot be tackled through individual responsibility alone. The state is also responsible for the health of its citizens. And therefore, it is the government that must intervene to protect their well-being.

Sweden is considered an example of an alternative strategy. No confinements. Open schools. Protected economy. But again, the facts are inconveniently opposite to what many critics suggest. According to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, deaths per 100,000 people in Sweden are 58 · 12. In the UK, 65 · 68. Lower, but not much lower. (Those calling for the UK to adopt the Swedish model should wonder why Germany’s death rate is 11.80 per 100,000, or why Japan’s 1.32.) been especially severe. Outbreaks in hospitals have been frequent. There have been more cases of pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Swedish, Somali and Syrian immigrant communities have been severely affected. Herd immunity has not been achieved. Infections are increasing once again. And many Swedish scientists believe that too many citizens have died unnecessarily because of a policy that did not take the consequences of COVID-19 seriously. At the World Public Health Congress last week, Josep Figueras and Luis Eugenio de Souza discussed the difficulties of making decisions about the management of COVID-19 in the face of extreme uncertainty. There is no simple way to turn off a pandemic. But Naomi Nathan argued that the public health community must learn to think more about the intersection between politics and health. The complexities we face today are partly due to our failure to take political decision-making more seriously as a fundamental part of public health. As the relationship between science and politics continues to break down, we must recognize that evidence alone will never be enough.