By David Young-
The concept of herd immunity, often misunderstood and misinterpreted during the initial stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, was never a part of the UK government’s official strategy, according to Chief Medical Officer for England, Prof Sir Chris Whitty.
In his testimony to the Covid inquiry, professor Whitty(pictured) highlighted the failure in communication that led to misconceptions about herd immunity, which, if pursued, would have resulted in an “extraordinarily high loss of life.”
As the pandemic progressed, there was a prevailing belief among some sections of the public that herd immunity was a deliberate government policy.
Whitty, however, categorically stated that such an approach was “inconceivable” and that any attempt to achieve herd immunity without stringent measures would have led to devastating consequences.
Giving evidence for a second day on Wednesday, Professor Sir Chris Whitty said 80% of the population would have had to have contracted coronavirus to achieve herd immunity.
He said that by the end of the first wave that figure was only 20%, adding that the public debate around herd immunity caused “considerable confusion” and was “frankly unhelpful”, particularly as it was led by people who “had at best half-understood the issue”.
“It would have been inconceivable that this should have been an
In March 2020, Whitty attempted to curb discussions around herd immunity, given its complexity and the potential for public confusion. At the time, he lamented the widespread chatter about the concept by individuals who had, at best, a partial understanding of the issues.
The prevailing notion at the time had linked herd immunity to letting the virus spread unchecked through the population, with the hope that a sufficient number of people would gain immunity, eventually slowing infection rates.
Whitty emphasized that nobody in the government endorsed the idea, and the confusion arose from discussions about it as a potential natural course of the pandemic based on misunderstood modeling papers.
He acknowledged the need for a reevaluation of communication strategies, insisiting that discussions around herd immunity were unhelpful and contributed to public upset and confusion.
The miscommunication extended to public figures discussing herd immunity as a possible strategy.
Whassap Messages
Whitty revealed that he sent WhatsApp messages to a group that included Prime Minister Boris Johnson and then-Health Secretary Matt Hancock, urging them not to publicly discuss herd immunity due to its complexities and the likelihood of being misunderstood.
The notion of using herd immunity as a policy to rapidly eliminate Covid was debunked by Whitty.
He explained that, even after the first wave of Covid, only about 20% of people had been infected.
Additionally, relying on post-infection immunity, which was not permanent for Covid, and asking vulnerable populations to isolate for extended periods were both impractical and morally questionable aspects of the herd immunity strategy.
Whitty dismissed the Great Barrington Declaration, a document advocating for herd immunity, as flawed at multiple levels. He labeled those supporting the plan as simply wrong, emphasizing that the goal was clearly ridiculous and dangerous.
Despite the clarity from health officials, some individuals in government embraced the idea without a thorough understanding, contributing to the confusion.
Contrasting Narrative From Sweden
While the UK was caught up with communication failures regarding herd immunity, the Swedish experience provides a contrasting narrative.
Sweden adopted a distinctive approach by opting against strict lockdown measures, choosing to rely on voluntary compliance and personal responsibility. Its underlying philosophies shun the idea of breaking established rules and procedures.
Sweden refused to introduce more draconic and sovereign measures as mortality rates grew rapidly politicians and leading experts in the country were not prepared to craft strong responses without violating constitutional and procedural frameworks, which they were unwilling to do.
Such unwillingness, which is of great interest during a serious security event, makes sense in the theoretical light of path-dependency and a logic of appropriateness.
The Swedish model aimed to achieve a degree of herd immunity through natural infections, while protecting vulnerable populations.
In contrast to the UK’s communication challenges, Swedish authorities maintained transparency about their strategy, emphasizing the need for collective responsibility and adherence to guidelines.
International Debates
The Swedish approach sparked international debates, with proponents commending the nation for prioritizing individual freedoms and critics questioning the human cost of the strategy.
The Swedish model, although garnering attention and fostering discussions, did not emerge unscathed.
Sweden faced its share of challenges, including a higher per capita death rate compared to its Nordic neighbors and criticism for not providing adequate protection to vulnerable populations in care homes.
While the UK faced criticism for miscommunication around herd immunity, Sweden’s openness about its approach allowed for informed debates and assessments.
Navigating Divergent Views On Herd Immunity
Amid the complexities of herd immunity, strategies and the communication challenges faced by health officials, public opinions in the UK varied.
While a significant portion of the population adhered to government guidelines and appreciated the efforts to curb the spread of the virus, there were also individuals who expressed support for the concept of herd immunity.
These views were not limited to the fringes but included segments of the British public who, for various reasons, saw merit in allowing the virus to circulate to build immunity.
The Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a focused protection strategy and herd immunity, gained traction among some individuals who believed it presented a viable alternative to stringent lockdown measures.
The document, signed by a group of scientists and scholars, echoed sentiments from those who felt lockdowns were causing considerable societal and economic damage.
The divergence in public opinions highlights the delicate balance health officials must strike between conveying scientific complexities and addressing the concerns and perceptions of a diverse society.
The challenge lies not only in formulating effective strategies but also in ensuring that the rationale behind these strategies is communicated clearly and comprehensively.
The pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities in communication, emphasizing the need for clear, transparent, and accessible information dissemination.
Health officials, policymakers, and communicators are expected to continually reassess their strategies to bridge the gap between scientific complexities.