Omicron: Better to be safe (and quick) than sorry

When the Omicron variant was discovered, many countries promptly implemented travel restrictions and other public health precautions, such as mandatory mask-wearing. Is this, however, the right course of action given the absence of data?

These measures come at a price, and some have contended that they are excessive. New precautions, according to critics of the travel ban, will not materially slow the spread of the variation. Indeed, authorities from the World Health Organization (WHO) have recommended countries not to adopt travel restrictions quickly, instead opting for a risk-based, science-based strategy.

Others argue that the variant's risks should not be exaggerated, considering the few reports of minor illness so far. Throughout the pandemic, officials have been grappling with how to deal with uncertainty. Another example of this is the birth of the Omicron variation.

One issue with the WHO's proposal to use a completely scientific approach to policymaking in this area is that our current scientific understanding is limited. The impact of the variant on infections and hospitalizations, as well as the efficacy of current immunizations, testing, and treatments, is still unknown.

Although trials to investigate these allegations are underway, obtaining evidence will take time. At the moment, it's difficult to put a specific number on the dangers we face.

Policymakers are in a pickle. If they opt to wait for further data before making a truly evidence-based choice, any imposed measures may be too late to have a major advantage.

If they choose to impose restrictions now, their policies have more chance of mitigating the harm of a variant. But, such an approach may be accused of lacking a solid evidence base, and we may later find that the restrictive policies were unnecessary if the variant is not as bad as first feared.

Not a scientific issue

The question of how we should manage uncertainty is not a scientific issue; it is an ethical issue of how we should balance different “moral costs.” Imposing public health restrictions early has tangible costs on individual liberty and well-being. Travel bans have economic implications and may damage international solidarity. These costs are all the more galling if data later shows that they were not truly necessary. Yet these restrictions could be scaled back once the evidence suggests that it is safe to do so.

In contrast, delaying restrictions could have even more significant costs. If a more transmissible variant is allowed to go unchecked, this will lead to a significant spike in infections. In turn, it would lead to more people suffering severe outcomes from Covid -- the extent depending on whether current vaccines have reduced protection against Omicron.

To protect healthcare systems from such a wave of seriously ill people, it may become necessary to impose even more restrictive and far-ranging policies that go beyond mask-wearing and travel restrictions. It may also be necessary to impose them for a longer period. The costs of such policies to liberty and well-being may be far higher than those currently in place, and they may have other social harms, for instance, if they involve interruptions to education.

We are also now far enough into the pandemic to have made mistakes that we ought to learn from. If we are interested in safeguarding individual liberty in the long term, saving lives, and preserving trust in our policymaking institutions, then it is better to act now.