We all knew that only through social distancing (and other preventative actions) could we flatten the COCID-19 curve and bring our society (and other societies around the world) back to normal. But was this assumption about NPIs really valid? Could these socially based interventions do the trick in blocking the invasion of the virus? Some epidemiologists from respected universities in the world (such as Harvard University) offered some “inconvenient truths”, based on their careful modeling of future trends in the infection and mortality rates. In a Boston Globe article titled “There’s only one way this ends: herd immunity”, Jeff Howe (April 12, 2020) offered the following sobering observation:
It’s easy to forget that if a disease can’t be contained – and its’ too late for that in the COVID-19 pandemic—then there’s only one possible ending to the story: We must collectively develop immunity to the disease. In lieu of a vaccine, that means most of us will need to be exposed to the virus, and some unknowably large number of us will die in the process. (Howe, 2020, p. K1)
The epidemiological experts introduced several different public policies to see what the impact of each policy would be on the rates of virus-related infection and death. Shockingly, it seemed that if a society consistently practices NPIs then rates of infection and mortality would drop off for only a short period of time and then rise again.
What was the reason for this potential trend? As Howe notes, it all has to do with the inevitability of infection. We will all eventually become infected, so the use of NPIs only delays the inevitable. Worst yet, this means that many of us would never build the antibodies that are created when we are infected and then come through the infection with built-in protection against the virus. What was to be done with this set of inconvenient truths? And did these truths influence the policies formulated and actions that were actually taken? Perhaps most importantly, as we reflect back over the past year, we must ask: was the influence that did take place helpful or harmful?
