A study published in the journal Science concludes that “social distancing” measures, which are at this time being re-evaluated for possible easing at both the federal and state level, may need to continue intermittently or in more prolonged fashion into 2022, and possibly as late as 2024, in order to contain the spread of COVID-19.
Hopefully you're comfortable wherever you're sheltering in place, because a new study out of Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health says periods of social distancing may be necessary into 2022 to curb the spread of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.
As the researchers in the peer-reviewed study explain, the degree to which the virus continues to spread and recur among the human population is ultimately dependent upon the degree of immunity that is built up to it by people who have already been infected. The focus of the study was on the duration of such immunity. The study ran computer-simulations based on known data pertaining to COVID-19, and data pertaining to other coronaviruses understood to be related to COVID-19.
"The total incidence of COVID-19 illness over the next five years will depend critically upon whether or not it enters into regular circulation after the initial pandemic wave, which in turn depends primarily upon the duration of immunity that SARS-CoV-2 infection imparts," the researchers, led by Harvard research fellow Stephen Kissler, write in summary.
As Eric Mack, writing for CNET, explains, if the duration of COVID-19-fostered immunity is similar to the milder versions of the coronavirus, such immunity may least for a year or less, leading to outbreaks “akin to what we see in cold and flu season.” Or, a scenario involving biennial outbreaks with more minimal “flare-ups” during the intervening two years is possible. Harvard’s computer models also account for the seasonal patterns in such virus recurrence (as occurred in the aftermath of the 1918 flu pandemic, for example) concluding, as Mack notes, “In essence, colder places could see more drastic seasonal pendulum swings in infection..” The study itself posits "a resurgence in contagion could be possible as late as 2024."
From the abstract:
To avoid this, prolonged or intermittent social distancing may be necessary into 2022. Additional interventions, including expanded critical care capacity and an effective therapeutic, would improve the success of intermittent distancing and hasten the acquisition of herd immunity.
The authors of the study explicitly acknowledge that they “are aware that prolonged distancing, even if intermittent, is likely to have profoundly negative economic, social and educational consequences."
So assuming their data is accurate, we are left to speculate what those “profoundly negative economic, social and educational consequences” would be.
It would probably be safe to say that, under such circumstances and assuming the widespread availability of testing, a recurring, substantial class of workers who are already immune to the virus would come into existence, as more and more people survived infection. But even intermittent continued distancing would mean periods where large parts of the economy would have to be essentially shut down, if only temporarily. Our society would have to make some interesting choices for the rest of the population who remained uninfected, however. But would we consent to purposely, deliberately allow the entire population to be infected, knowing of the potential, deadly risks? Absent a vaccine could those risks be mitigated to the point they were manageable? And what would be the morality of such an approach? Who would we choose to administer it, to monitor it? Would we vote on it?
It would appear at a bare minimum that society would have to be re-imagined, at least if the focus remained on actually protecting people from infection. The definition of what “social distancing” actually means would have to be established, to distinguish it from, say, “lockdown.” Although businesses would be compelled to adapt, vast numbers of people still could not work (at least in theory), and the U.S. government would have to be radically transformed into a welfare state, providing not only a sustaining wage to maintain people’s lives but also completely subsidized health care.
Provision would have to be made for safely maintaining the food supply (and certainly the alcohol supply). While higher education could conceivably go virtual in some disciplines, many which require more than “online” involvement and could not readily adapt to “distancing” would have to wait until the pandemic passed. For those young people caught up in such a situation, the financial and social perils of continuous unemployment and/or a truncated education would have to be addressed, and somehow mitigated.
This doesn’t even begin to consider the real social aspects of continued distancing. People aren’t meant to be kept artificially apart. And class differences would soon become acute. The wealthy would continue to enjoy relatively easy lives, but a vast number of people would not, and it’s likely they would soon tire of seeing the wealthy cavorting in their enclaves. There would be drastic upheaval and demands to return to work and damn the consequences for millions. God only knows what would happen to relationships, marriages or religious belief and practices given such a transformation. And depending on the choices made, it’s debatable whether the Republican Party with its pro-business and anti-social welfare ethic survives in such an environment (for what that’s worth).
The bottom line is that there’s a hell of a lot to think about here, and it’s a little beyond all of our paygrades to imagine how the world would be altered. But we may all have to think about these things sooner, rather than later. And it goes without saying, but we certainly don’t want the current cast of idiots in charge of things while these matters are being debated.