The Case Against the 'Herd Immunity' Argument

People walking the street in Stockholm, Sweden. Image source: Roland Magnusson © 123RF.com

A lot has already been written about Sweden's controversial decision to refrain from imposing a national lockdown, unlike its European partners and much of the world. Instead, the northern state has decided to merely caution its citizens to be vigilant and take responsibility by practising social distancing as much as possible. Nevertheless, much to the dismay of epidemiologists arguing against Sweden's preferred 'Herd Immunity' approach, the country's restaurants and coffees continue to be open as the epidemic intensifies, thereby increasing the risk of SARS-Cov-2's unimpeded spread.

Much remains to be learned about the novel coronavirus as data from countries like South Korea, Singapore, Greece, and others, which reacted relatively fast to the initial outbreak of the deadly pathogen, has yet to be thoroughly analysed. It is almost impossible to weigh in on the exact efficiency of the complete lockdown policies of most countries. Similarly, it is equally as hard to evaluate Sweden's opposite approach to the issue at hand. Thereby, Sweden's controversial decision can be judged only in hindsight once all of the relevant data is collected and analysed by researchers, which is unlikely to happen in the near future. It remains to be seen whether ultimately the 'herd immunity' approach would fare better compared to the policy of maximum isolation, or vice versa.

In the face of this coronavirus obscurity due to lack of relevant data, many people have joined the bandwagon in support of the 'herd immunity' approach. Heated debates have already started to paint the lockdown policies as representing a major impediment to the economy, instead of a necessary tool in the fight against the pandemic. It seems that the 'herd immunity' principle is starting to gain traction with people who are already feeling the strain from the global economic shutdowns. Such people are beginning to recognise a pattern of juxtaposition between the two aforementioned alternatives. Based on that, they appear to assume that since the economy is reeling because of the national lockdowns, the 'Herd Immunity' approach, being its exact opposite, must somehow preclude the same economic losses. This is a rather lengthy conjecture which is based on multiple unconfirmed beliefs.

There are no guarantees the economy is going to take off immediately if the restrictions are lifted today. And even if it does, what happens when many people start feeling sick from COVID-19 and are unable to continue participating in the economic activity while sick, but the hospitals become overcrowded? Even the retail sector is not exempt from the threat because it is highly unlikely for people to continue going to restaurants, pubs, and cafés, knowingly they would be putting themselves in danger from catching the virus. This would be especially true if their city or town reports tens or hundreds of deaths related to the virus each day. The question is, why do people believe without evidence that the 'Herd Immunity' approach is economically superior to the alternative? And even more perplexingly, why are so many people advocating the approach knowingly fully well that they could be putting at risk themselves, their loved once, and so many other people, if they get away with it?

One possible explanation could be the recent remarks by Anders Tegnell, Sweden's top epidemiologist, who told Swedish news agency TT that the country's strategy is starting to show results. 'We are on a sort of a plateau', he said.

This could very well be true, and Mr Tegnell is in the best position to claim so. However, his remarks should not be taken out of context. There are no objective reasons to expect that Sweden's strategy, even if ultimately proven successful, could or would function with the same efficiency elsewhere. This makes the implementation of the 'Herd Immunity' approach highly contextual from country to country.

As it was already mentioned, it would be highly imprudent to speculate about the COVID-19 pandemic when lacking comprehensive data about the virus' nature. Nevertheless, certain observations could be made to possibly explain Sweden's alleged success in its own fight against the pathogen. Factors such as Sweden's relatively young nation, its advanced healthcare system, and fairly dispersed population, could all be essential components of the country's pursuit towards achieving 'Herd Immunity'. Only top Swedish officials like Mr Tegnell are in a position to argue for or against the country's preferred course of action, because they are the ones who can evaluate the available data like the one presented above, in order to make timely decisions.

What is scary about the current situation, but also quite telling of human psychology is the fact that so many people who are not in possession of comprehensive data are willing, and indeed eager, to advocate the implementation of a highly controversial strategy such as the pursuit of 'Herd Immunity'. They are doing so even as they are being told the risks could be quite substantial, and lots of people can die as local healthcare systems get overwhelmed. Such people cling on to their hopes of snap economic recovery by easing off the current restrictions in place, without any underlying evidence supporting this hypothesis. Simultaneously, they appear more than willing to accept the much better documented accompanying risks, as apparently the subconscious 'it's never going to happen to me" assumption proves to be quite a compelling incentive.

George Orwell is most famous for his works '1984' and 'Animal Farm', which expose the grim realities of living in totalitarian states. He is praised for his intricate exposés of regimes that grab and consolidate power 'from above', but it would be interesting to hear what he'd have to say about the current situation if he were alive today. Indeed, it seems as though many people are ready to freely put themselves and others in danger, because of their blind pursuits of what is now unjustifiably regarded as the common good - the preservation of the economy. Distinct visions of Mr Jones' former barn emerge with the distant bleating of "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD" echoing in the back of one's head.

Without having extensive supporting data, the advocacy of the 'Herd Immunity' approach becomes tantamount to deliberately upholding that the preservation of the economy is more important than risking human lives. That is not to say that the method itself is evil, but its propagation out of context is at the very least socially irresponsible.

Napoleon, the leader of Animal Farm, could just as well have said something along the lines of "the death of one man is a tragedy, but the death of millions is a statistic" during Animal Farm's on and off conflicts with Mr Pilkington's farm, to underscore the totalitarian lust for power mentioned above. It would be a far greater stretch of one's imagination, however, to assume that if facing the threat of the coronavirus pandemic, Mollie, Clover, Boxer, and the rest of the animals living in the former Manor Farm, would have been so eager to put themselves in harm's way for the sake of grain production.

The economy would be fine (eventually), but we need to rethink our priorities.