EARLY on in the pandemic, we heard a lot about behavioural fatigue 鈥� the hunch that people would quickly grow tired of restrictions on their lives and throw caution to the wind. It was a factor in the reluctance of the UK government to go into lockdown too quickly, a delay that led to the virus getting out of hand.
We don鈥檛 hear very much about behavioural fatigue any more. We feel it. The prospect of further restrictions or even 鈥渃ircuit breaker鈥� lockdowns (see 鈥淪hould we plan for regular 鈥榗ircuit-breaker鈥� coronavirus lockdowns?鈥�) is greeted with dread, and the very real possibility of disobedience.
Advertisement
This isn鈥檛 the time to let our guard down. Two obvious reasons are that we don鈥檛 want to overwhelm hospitals or shut schools. But there is another reason to mask up, observe distancing and stick to any extra rules that apply: to prevent the virus from evolving.
Up to now, we have been lucky on this score. SARS-CoV-2 has changed little since it emerged. It is so stable genetically that drugs and vaccines in development ought to work against all variants currently circulating (see 鈥淚s the coronavirus evolving and will it become more or less deadly?鈥�).
Yet we cannot take that for granted. The virus does have the capacity to mutate into something worse, but can only do so if it is transmitted from human to human.
Cutting off transmission is therefore vital while we await a vaccine. If and when that vaccine arrives, high levels of uptake are vital for the same reason. Even more so, in fact, as the vaccine will put pressure on the virus to mutate.
鈥淯nfortunately, herd immunity is bad science and would also expose us to the risk of viral evolution鈥�
Fatigue is also partially responsible for the enthusiastic welcome that the herd immunity strategy, or 鈥渓etting the virus rip鈥�, has received in some circles. It undeniably has a certain freedom-loving appeal. (see 鈥淚t is bad science to say covid-19 infections will create herd immunity鈥�), and would also expose us to the risk of viral evolution.
Risk is something we are notoriously bad at assessing. This pandemic has brought new challenges for individuals in balancing the risks to themselves and others, and for governments in balancing the needs of different sectors of society (see 鈥淵our covid-19 risk: How to navigate this new world of uncertainty鈥�). But the behavioural fatigue fiasco showed the danger of basing policy on plausible-sounding hunches. We must not make that mistake again.
