New Scientist 28Mar2020

Views

Themlgmnl•

CblmdaP.relmcl-

~onthe

Hubblec:omcant pl4

I.eUea

Thee&c:tsof

pindnnkacmathe

sodllgradlml pa6

Beyond the science of covid-19

Models of the new coronavirus's spread are imperfect, so factors other

than the science play an important role too, says David.Adam

"T AICE nobody'swordibril"
Thatishowthemotto
of the UK's Royal Society,
Nullius in vema, is usually
inteJpreted. It Isa wamlngagaintt
listenmgtoargumentsmade
purely from authority. Only the
llclenc:e-data and evidence-is
penuasive.Butwhataboutwhen
the sc:ienc:e itself is p?esentecl as
the de facto authority?
As the covid-19 pandemic
tightens its grip, politicians in
the UK and elsewhere haw been
invoking "the science" as their
spfrtt guide, eapedally u a defence
when theJrpolic:les and actkma
(or lack of them) are crltidsed.
Decisions on cavid-19 have to be
made urgently, and it is comet to
take the latest scientific expertise
into account. Evidence-based
policy-making is presentedas
the gold standard and rightly so,
eapeclallyln public health. But it
is vital to stress that "the sdencie"
ofthlspandemic-andwhat
should be done in response-is
quite diffen!nt from "the science",
say. ofhowsoap and waterpmtect
againstthecoronavll'us.
The benefits of the latter
in bandwashing are based on
established facts, testable ideas
and the results of properly
planned sperlmenta. It ls
knowledge; sderuieuaedaa
a noun. Whereas research on
oovid-19, and in particular the
policy raponse, is science as a
verb. It is uncertain, tnmsitiw,
I contested and volatile. No scientist
would argue othenvise, ofmune,
! and those involved in coordinating

the policy response have been at

palm to point out the limitations

and uncertainties in their

thinking. and the preliminary

nature of the findings.

But politicians don'tlilcl! to

stress uncertainty. UK prime

:minister Boris Johnson repeatedly

says his gowmment'sactkma

are based OD "the best sdenc:e".

Campaigners on Twitter and

elsewhere who wanted the UK

to dose schools earlier than it

didhadwgeclthegovemment

to listen to "the science~

Those in the UK can see much

of that science for themselves.

Researchers at Imperial College

London whoareadvialngthe

govemmenthavepubl1shed

asumnwyoftheresultaof

their modelling, including

the assumptions it:rests on.

The importance of these

assumptions is underlined by

what happened when theteam

got hold of some updated da.'bl

on what proportion of people

hospitalised by covid-19 would

needintenslve care. The initial

estimate was tS percent. But when

the researchers doubled that to

30 percent. based on reports from

Italy and China, the model said

that250,ooopeoplewould die.

That single change seems

to haw been enough to trigger

severe newrestrlctions on public

gatherings and social contact.

But those policies are based on

assumptionsoftheirown:thathalf

ofhouseholds will comply with

requests to self-isolate for14 days

if someone shows symptoms, for

example. And that closing schools

and thme-quarters ofuniveraltlea

will actuallyinaease community

contact between infected and.

uninfected people by 25 percent.

Howreliablemethosenumbers?

Wejustdon'tknow.

Earlier this month, an editorial

in 7be Guardian comp1ained that

the UK'sresponsetothevbus

was "confused and hesitant':

and argued that disclosure of the

scientific: evidence was needed to

protect publictJust. Yet confused

and hesitant is how the best

science proceeds.

Polic:ies, even evidence-based

ones, uen't based on science

alone. They emerge from a process

that also ac:countt for values and

priorities. Right now, politidans

must balancethewayawider

lockdown of the population

could help n=duce infection,

against the negative sociological

amsequencsof isolationand the

impact on civil liberties. These are

political dedsions, and they must

be seen and presented as such,

partku]arly as the continuing

pandemic and the severe

restrictions on people's lives start

to fray the collective patience. I

David Adam is

a consultant for

New SCientist