July 19th
last year (2021) was characterised as ‘freedom day’ by the UK government and media.
On that date, there were three notable changes in policy in relation to the
Covid pandemic: nightclubs were allowed to reopen, social distancing rules were
dropped, and the wearing of face coverings was no longer required by law.
As with ‘freedom
day’ 2020, changes in public behaviour began ahead
of the day itself. The media fanfare ahead of the actual announcement
operated as a strong signal that measures such as face coverings were less
necessary due to a decline in the threat from the virus.
However,
the psychology and behaviour were somewhat at odds. In a commentary
published a few weeks after ‘freedom day’ 2021, the British Psychological
Society COVID-19 Behavioural Science and Disease Prevention Taskforce observed
that ‘most adults (92%) said they continued to wear face coverings, while the
percentage of adults who said they ‘always’ or ‘often’ maintained physical
distancing was 53% (down from 63% just before ‘freedom day’) in the same
period. These data and other evidence therefore suggest that, for at least a
large proportion of the UK public, there was still a desire to maintain
protective behaviours’.
While
there was therefore no large sudden drop in protective behaviours immediately
after ‘freedom day’ 2021, the Office for National Statistics has charted a
steady decline in key protective behaviours – use of face coverings, avoiding
crowded places – in the year since then, as well as a very concerning decline
in the rate of take-up of vaccinations.
Yet
arguably it was the further abandonments of mitigation measures by the
government this year that have had a bigger impact than ‘freedom day’ 2021, and
certainly seem to be associated with the acceleration in the decline in
protective behaviours. In January this year, the prime minister announced the dropping
of (relatively limited) requirements to present Covid passes at certain venues
and events and the rule to wear face coverings on public transport and in
certain indoor locations, as well as the guidance to work remotely. (Indeed, the
term ‘freedom day’ was used for January
2022, not just July 2020 and 2021). Then, in February, the legal
requirement to self-isolate and the £500 isolation payment for people on low
incomes who are required to self-isolate were both dropped. And free Covid
testing stopped on 1 April this year.
Today,
even as rates of Covid infection are sky-rocketing, only a minority are now
adopting protective measures such as face coverings. In-person meetings and events
are now the norm, and rates of self-isolation, already low, have dropped still further.
In order
to explain these patterns of public behaviour, it’s helpful to look at the same
factors that explained adherence in the first place.
First,
there is perception of risk. There has been a step-change in the public’s
perceptions of the risks associated with Covid in the past six months or so. This
partly reflects a recognition that the vaccines have made the threat of serious
illness and death less likely for the vast majority. But it is also a function
of the way we think about illness – that in some way it’s now ‘ok’ or more acceptable
or accepted to be ill with Covid. Of course, if you are very ill or unable to
access a service because of illness in the workforce, then you can see that it isn’t
actually sustainable to accept these levels of illness. This is where the
government’s messaging comes in. They and their supporters have repeatedly told
us that the pandemic is over. (Many were surprised then at yet another Omicron
wave this summer.) In line with this, they have dismantled much of the machinery
set up to help in the pandemic response (including the advisory groups and some
of the surveillance). Like the government’s attempts almost to enforce
pre-pandemic norms (such as coming into the office), these actions have further
significantly impacted public perceptions of risk. In addition, perceptions of risk
have also been altered in terms of scope: there has been an unfortunate
reframing of risk to focus on ‘me’ the individual (mostly not going to die) rather
than ‘us’ the community (which includes large variations in levels of vulnerability).
These altered perceptions of risk have consequences for people’s willingness to
take up the offers of vaccine, as well as for behaviours such as mask-wearing.
It is no coincidence that the vaccine programme has stalled in the past six months,
with a significant minority still not vaccinated.
Second, there
are social norms. To see other people abandoning masks and embracing crowded
places operates as a form of evidence that in-person interaction is safer now
-- particularly when the other people involved are our reference groups. The
survey data suggests that most people see mitigation measures as important, but
think
that other people don’t feel the same way. These perceived norms drive
behaviour more than own attitudes do.
Third, there
is the role of support (or lack of it). Now, almost all support for protective
behaviours has been dropped. The ending of financial support for self-isolation
and the abolition of free testing for most people not only make it harder for
many people to do these things, but also again send a very strong signal that risk
is reduced.
There has
been a struggle over the meaning of ‘living with the virus’. The
prevailing definition, in which we put up with repeated and sometimes long-term
illness, is in large part of function of so-called ‘freedom day’ 2021 and, more
so, the other government announcements to drop mitigations, which communicated
that the public could and should behave as though the virus doesn’t actually
exist.
