Oxford (UK): When finding an Omicron variant, many countries move quickly to impose travel restrictions and other public health steps, such as masks must wear.
But, given the lack of data, is this the best action? These steps have real costs, and some argue that they are excessive reactions.
Criticism of travel prohibitions claim that new steps will not significantly prevent the spread of variants.
Indeed, officials of the World Health Organization (WHO) have urged countries not to hastily impose travel, instead of advocating for risk analysis and science-based approaches.
Others suggest that the danger of variants should not be played, given the relatively light disease reports so far.
However, scientific advisers in the UK warned that Omicron might require a “very strict response”.
Throughout the pandemic, policy makers have been faced with the problem of how to manage uncertainty.
The emergence of omicron variants is another example of this.
One problem with WHO advice adopting a science-based approach to policy in this field is that our current scientific understanding is limited.
There is still significant uncertainty about the impact of variants will have an infection and hospitalization, and the effectiveness of vaccines, tests, and current care.
Although trials are being carried out to investigate this problem, gathering evidence will take time.
At present, it is difficult to precisely calculate the risks we face.
Policy makers face a dilemma.
If they choose to wait for further data so that they can make decisions that are fully based evidence, it may be too late for any policies imposed to have significant benefits.
If they choose to impose restrictions now, their policies have more possibilities to reduce the danger of variants.
But such an approach can be accused of not having a solid basis of evidence, and we can then find that restrictive policy is not necessary if the variant is not as bad as the first feared.
It’s not a scientific problem question about how we have to manage uncertainty is not a scientific problem, it is an ethical problem about how we must balance different “moral costs”.
Using restrictions on public health earlier has real costs of individual freedom and welfare.
Travel prohibitions have economic implications and can damage international solidarity.
These costs are all more torturous if the data will show that they are not really necessary.
But this restriction can be returned once the evidence shows that it is safe to do so.
Conversely, delays in restrictions can have more significant costs.
If a more transmitted variant is allowed not to be checked, this will lead to a significant infection surge.
In turn, it will lead to more people who suffer severe results from Covid – so far depend on whether the current vaccine has reduced protection against omicron.
To protect the health care system from waves of severe people, it may be necessary to impose even more stringent and farther policies that exceed the restrictions on usage and travel.
It may also be necessary to force them for a longer period.
The policy costs for freedom and welfare may be much higher than those currently exist, and they may have other social losses, for example, if they involve interference in education.
We are also quite far to the pandemic to make mistakes we have to learn.
The British government is unanimously criticized because of the slowness of the response of the pandemic initially, including the absence of border steps.
If we are interested in protecting individual freedom in the long term, saving lives and preserving trust in our policy-making institutions, it is better to act now.
(Conversation)
Omicron: better safe (and fast) than regret
