Reading time: 4 minutes.

At the time of writing, I can hold my breath for just 8 seconds before coughing and have a mild fever. Acknowledging the self-serving bias, I can only blame the UK government for this. Last Sunday, the Bath Half, perhaps the last large public event in the UK for the foreseeable future (I’m speculating) should have been cancelled. It was the governments choice to eschew social distancing measures. Instead nearly 7000 runners encroached on a city which, until that weekend, had no diagnosed cases of coronavirus. I ran the Bath Half myself, I was happy the event stayed on after months of training. However, in hindsight, for public health reasons I can’t help but criticise the government for not enforcing social distancing measures.

Last Friday, I was excited to read the headline ‘Why is the government relying on nudge theory to fight coronavirus?’ I thought this could be a big breakthrough in our field, but as I read more, I became the less convinced of the nudge-focused approach. This is in no way a critique of behavioural science, but of Boris Johnson’s approach to combat this pandemic.

The article highlighted the governments behavioural nudges to combat coronavirus. These include washing your hands while singing happy birthday (or, for Jacob Rees-Mogg, the national anthem), not touching your face, elbow touching rather than hand shaking or self-isolating if you have a cough. However, Boris did not implement any concrete measures to stop the spread of coronavirus, this was left for people to decide on their own. His reason was behavioural fatigue – the belief that self-isolation will grow increasingly tiresome and as people will rebel against quarantines they will re-enter the public sphere just as the virus hits its peak – when quarantine is most essential.

On the same day I read this article, a team of behavioural scientists wrote an open letter to the government to express concern for their delay in implementing social distancing measures. This letter has since received nearly 700 signatures from academics in the Behavioural Science field. The letter criticised the government’s reliance on this unsubstantiated principle of ‘behavioural fatigue’. This is why the UK has not followed the examples of Italy, Spain, China or South Korea lockdown policies. While one article provides some indication that ‘behavioural fatigue’ was demonstrated during past pandemics, the overall evidence is scarce. Even if behavioural fatigue were real, large gatherings such as sporting events, gigs, concerts or schools are hotbeds for coronavirus and should be avoided. These gatherings ‘super-spread’ the virus to large numbers at once. For Boris’ government to pin such a high-risk public health strategy on this concept, with such little proof, seems absurd.

Part of the reason not to embrace bans was to encourage a ‘herd immunity’. If enough people survive coronavirus, there can only be limited new cases. This appears to be another approach which lacks evidence. It is not known that people can develop long-lasting immunity to Covid-19.

The UK government strategy comes down to the narrative around covid-19. Italy, Spain, China, South Korea and the rest of the world seem to have adopted the fire narrative. That is Covid-19 must be beaten back or extinguished. Britain has adopted the rising tide narrative – there’s no point in resisting but we should prepare for the worst. Therefore, with this narrative the end point is when ‘herd immunity’ is reached, but who knows when this would be? Therefore, in the rising tide context, behavioural fatigue may seem relevant, as there is no end date for social distancing in sight. However, behavioural scientists emphasise there is no evidence behind it.

The fire narrative would be easier to build social cohesion around, galvanising the public to combat the extinguishable epidemic. For one, this is positively framed. Instead the UK governments tide narrative has effectively told the public to expect an unavoidable abundance of anguish, adding to the public panic and individualism. However it is refreshing to see Boris has changed his narrative, telling ministers ‘We are engaged in a war against the disease which we have to win.’

Therefore the governments COVID-19 strategy thus far has been over-reliant on behavioural science nudges and the unsubstantiated principle of ‘behavioural fatigue’. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the most important goal of communication during any pandemic is to maintain public trust, however up to now the Boris Johnson’s strategy has jeopardised this. This is not the fault of behavioural science, but to tackle a pandemic such as this, more drastic measures are required. Nudges are necessary but they are not sufficient. While there is no doubt our situation will worsen before it improves, the future is optimistic with the government finally stepping up its measures to tackle coronavirus. I just hope it’s not too little too late.

What are your thoughts? Please comment below.