Original popular science article: Looking at the UK's "herd immunity" from the perspective of science communication

Editor: Kang Yan Reviewer: Yang Pengbin

(Fu Changyi) In March 2020, the UK launched a "herd immunity" policy to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. This policy quickly drew unanimous criticism from the scientific and science communication communities. This article attempts to analyze the impracticability of the "herd immunity" policy from the perspective of three application models of science communication theory, and puts forward corresponding suggestions.

Looking at UK's "herd immunity" from the perspective of scientific communication

VIEWING BRITISH "HUNDRED IMMUNITY" FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

【Abstract】: In March 2020, the UK launched a "herd immunity" policy to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. This policy quickly drew unanimous criticism from the scientific and science communication communities. This article attempts to analyze the impracticability of the "herd immunity" policy from the perspective of three application models of science communication theory, and puts forward corresponding suggestions.

【Key words】：herd immunity; science communication; science communication model

【Abstract】In March, the United Kingdom launched a "herd immunity" policy to combat the new crown epidemic. This policy quickly drew unanimous criticism from the scientific community and the science communication community. This article attempts to analyze the infeasibility of the "herd immunity" policy from the perspective of three application models of science communication theory, and proposes corresponding suggestions for this.

【Key Words】Herd immunity; science communication; science communication model

On March 12, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced at a press conference that the UK has entered the second phase of the epidemic, "delay", and will use the "herd immunity" method to fight the epidemic. Subsequently, Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK's chief scientific adviser, also defended the government's anti-epidemic policy, pointing out that the UK's "herd immunity" method is to slow down the development of the epidemic and enhance the immunity of the population.

After the introduction of this policy, domestic self-media also clearly divided into two factions. One faction, represented by scientist Rao Yi, believes that this so-called "herd immunity" method is a lie. "Herd immunity" without a vaccine will only lead to what Darwin called "survival of the fittest", which will only bring greater disasters. The other faction is represented by the article "The Past and Present of "Herd Immunity"" in Sanlian Weekly. They support the policy of the British government and scientific advisers, pointing out that this is the most suitable method for the British national conditions at present and that this is the highest level of humanitarianism.

So how should we understand the UK's anti-epidemic policy? I think we should return to the core concept of science communication to analyze this issue. In fact, the UK should be the country that conducted the earliest and most in-depth research on science communication. As early as the 1930s, British sociologist J.D. Bernard proposed the concept of scientific communication in his book The Social Function of Science. He believed that the issues of scientific communication research "not only include issues of communication between scientists, but also issues of communication with the public" [1]. In 1985, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom also issued "The Public Understanding of Science", emphasizing the importance of science communication and how to conduct science communication.

The most important point of the modern science communication concept is that it introduces communication into science.[2] This is different from the traditional view of science popularization. The traditional view of science popularization believes that science popularization is one-way, that is, the scientific community disseminates scientific knowledge to the public in a one-way manner, that is, from people who have scientific knowledge to people who do not have scientific knowledge, and the implicit premise is that science must be good. This is also what we have seen for a long time in the past. Only scientists and popular science writers introduce scientific knowledge to us. But today, this way of popularizing science must change in the face of new changes in the situation. The improvement of scientific literacy and the emergence of new self-media have also made it possible for the public to participate in science communication. Therefore, we are more urgently in need of introducing communication into science, and giving full play to the joint participation of multiple forces such as the government, the scientific community, the media, the public, and non-governmental organizations, so that the public can understand science and participate in science communication. This has also led to the emergence of three application models of science communication: the deficiency model, the democracy model, and the reflexivity model.

British scientist John Durant first proposed the "missing model" of science communication. The main idea of ​​the "missing model" is that "the public lacks scientific knowledge, so they need to improve their understanding of scientific knowledge" [3]. Compared with the traditional view of popular science, although the "missing model" also believes that science is good and will have a great impact on the public, it not only considers the dissemination of scientific knowledge to the public, but also hopes that through this kind of science communication, the public will understand science and make decisions to support science. The current "herd immunity" strategy in the UK should be a political decision made by applying this model. First, let everyone understand as much as possible why "herd immunity" is being implemented, and at the same time let everyone see the limitations of the government's resources and capabilities, and at the same time try to win the support of the media and the public for this policy. The news we have seen so far is that the UK society is relatively stable after implementing this policy. Although the public has different opinions, it has not caused too many problems.

But is it enough to just do this? British scholar Brian Winn has also proposed a different opinion on the "missing model", namely the "introspective model". He believes that the scientific community will also conceal some facts from the public on a series of issues that are not favorable to the government (conspiracy theory), or different scientific entities will not recognize the limitations of scientific theories (arrogance theory). Therefore, introspection must be introduced into science to allow the public and the scientific community to strengthen interaction and communication, so as to understand science [4]. From the current situation, we can see that the British government's introspection is obviously insufficient, and its research on the "herd immunity" theory is not comprehensive. An open letter from 198 scholars in the fields of mathematics and science also questioned the so-called "herd immunity", saying that "seeking 'herd immunity' at this juncture does not seem to be a feasible option. This will put greater pressure on the UK National Health Service (NHS) and make more people take unnecessary risks." Another open letter signed by 164 British behavioral scientists raised concerns about the concept of "behavioral fatigue". The letter pointed out that "behavioral fatigue" is the cornerstone of the UK's current policy to deal with the new crown epidemic, but the evidence behind it is questionable. In fact, whether the theory of "herd immunity" is effective in the prevention of the current pandemic has only been discussed in theory, but has not been verified by scientific experiments or tested by history. The so-called "herd immunity" method that has been tested by experiments and history actually refers to the use of vaccines to produce herd immunity, while herd immunity without vaccines has never been practiced. There are actually many scientific and ethical issues when a scientific method that has not been practiced is directly applied to the prevention and control of the epidemic. What's more, this method may cause at least 100,000 deaths (the data of 100,000 people is based on the inference that 60% of British people may be infected). Therefore, even Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the famous medical journal The Lancet, questioned this. He criticized the British epidemic prevention policy for playing a "roulette" with the people.

Looking back at the reaction in China, I think some of our media have over-trusted the British government’s explanation, and this explanation has not actually gained the consensus of the scientific community. It is just one person’s opinion, which may cause the death of tens of thousands of lives. I think this is not humanitarianism, but irresponsible to life. Back to the concept of the last democratic model, the democratic model means that the public and the scientific community are on an equal footing. The public should actively participate in scientific decision-making discussions. The public has the right to know the advantages and disadvantages of science. The public also has the right to supervise and constrain the research of the government and scientists [5]. If we start from this model, it is not difficult to understand why 100,000 people protested against this policy on the British Parliament website. Finally, even WHO spokesperson Margaret Harris questioned the idea of ​​developing "herd immunity" to fight the new coronavirus. Of course, sufficient doubt is to solve the problem. I believe that in the face of doubts, the British government will bravely review its policies and adjust them in a timely manner. There are reports that British Health Secretary Matthew Hancock also said, "Herd immunity is not our goal or policy, it is just a scientific concept. Our goal is to protect lives and defeat this virus." According to what he said, I believe that after a period of time, the UK's anti-epidemic policy should return to protecting lives and actively responding.

In addition, before this article was submitted for the essay contest (August 6), I once again searched for data related to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. The cumulative number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the UK has exceeded 300,000, and the number of deaths from COVID-19 has reached more than 46,000, with nearly 1,000 new confirmed cases per day. If the UK had taken a serious approach in March instead of considering the so-called "herd immunity" policy, this data would have been much lower. Unfortunately, the British failed to take it seriously and gave up science and thinking, resulting in the tragic situation of being ranked 12th in the world in confirmed data.

References:

[1] JD Bernard. Translated by Chen Tifang. The Social Function of Science[M]. Nanning: Guangxi University Press, 2003: 341.

[2] Zhang Jing, Yin Zhaopeng. Historical review of science communication theory: the process of introducing the concept of "communication" into "science" [J]. Studies in Dialectics of Nature, 2006(05):27-30.

[3] Li Zhengwei, Liu Bing. John Durant's theoretical study on public understanding of science: missing model[J]. The impact of science on society. 2003(3).

[4] Liu Bing, Li Zhengwei. Research on Brian Winn's theory of public understanding of science: Introspective model[J]. Studies in Science of Science, 2003(6).

[5] Zhai Jiequan. Let Technology Cross Time and Space: Science and Technology Communication and Science and Technology Communication Studies[M]. Beijing: Beijing University of Science and Technology Press, 2002.