How we will be ‘nudged’ this winter
Could the parade of ministers and health advisers urging us to help ‘save Christmas’ be up to their old tricks, asks Laura Dodsworth
There’s a chill in the air. Not from the changing seasons – it’s still fairly balmy – but from the latest attempts to orchestrate a subtle psychological manipulation of us all.
In the lockdown summer of 2020, I started to argue that the Government’s response to Covid was driven not so much by medical science or epidemiology, but instead by the psychological insights of behavioural scientists. In my book, A State of Fear: how the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic, I argue that controversial “nudge theory” lies at the heart of Westminster’s response. It refers to sneaky attempts to prime, prepare and prod us into their desired mindset and course of action, without us ever realising we are being coerced.
Some responses to my book seemed naive. Many believed that Downing Street’s approach was genuinely grounded in public health epidemiology. Now I think the dial is starting to move; the Government’s strategy becomes ever more clear. Once nudge is seen, it can’t be unseen. Behavioural scientists were dazzling the public with card tricks. This week, the Government may have overplayed its hand.
On Tuesday, Prof Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist whose modelling was used as the basis for the UK’S lockdown policy, made an illuminating comment on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “Nobody likes having their freedoms curtailed by measures but it’s prudent to be cautious, in everyday interactions certainly,” he told presenter Sarah Smith, “and wearing masks certainly helps that: it reminds people we’re not completely out of the woods yet.” It was a startling admission, if we needed one, that masks are as much about psychology as they are about preventing infection. They act as a “social cue”, to use the language of behavioural scientists, nudging us into vigilance.
Then, on Wednesday, after NHS leaders urged the Government to implement its Covid “Plan B” immediately (including the reimplementation of mandatory masks in crowded indoor spaces, and advice to work from home), Kwasi Kwarteng, the Business Secretary, appeared on television to herald the “hard-won gains” Britain has eked out of lockdown, adding: “I don’t want to reverse back to a situation where we have lockdowns – I don’t think it’s necessary”. It was a deployment of the sunk-cost fallacy: we’ve come so far, we mustn’t allow our good work to be undone. Until hearing Kwarteng’s words, you might not have known that there was even a risk of another lockdown. But now the idea has been seeded in your mind, ever so subtly.
Yesterday Sajid Javid, the Health Secretary, gave the first Downing Street briefing in a month – surely a portentous sign – announcing that Covid infections had risen by 15 per cent in a week, and warning that cases could hit 100,000 a day this winter. But, he continued, “if we all play our part, then we can give ourselves the best possible chance in this race… [We can] get through this winter and enjoy Christmas with our loved ones.” Why is Christmas even in doubt, an alarmed listener might think?
These psychological cues are carefully calibrated, more so than many realise. In a document drawn up by the “Nudge Unit” (known formally as the Behavioural Insights Team, a team set up by David Cameron in 2010; it is now a private company, but is still one-third owned by the Cabinet Office), scientists examine Slovakia’s mass testing programme to see how we could replicate its success here.
“Use empowering messaging,” the document advises. “Motivate people by creating a spirit of national resistance to the virus, highlighting the ability to make a positive action and contribute to the national effort to save lives and livelihoods. Use ‘save Christmas’ messaging.”
The threat of lockdown hangs like a Sword of Damocles. Will we or won’t we? It seems unlikely that the public and businesses could be persuaded again to cancel festivities for a second year. Regardless, the threat of lockdown might be leveraged to justify the introduction of Covid passports, in what is known as a “reciprocation nudge”, where we appear to be given a concession (the freedom to see our friends and relatives) as long as we roll over and accept a less severe option (Covid passports). It all makes me feel rather like a child: eat your vegetables, kids, or you’ll lose your right to dessert.
It is now becoming clear that Covid passports are a behavioural science tool, too, used to increase vaccine uptake. They are vigorously opposed by MPS and civil liberties groups, and there hasn’t yet been a vote in Parliament. And yet they squat in the Government’s “Plan B” as a mild threat.
There’s more honesty about this north of the border. Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, said the passport scheme “will not eradicate transmission completely, but it will help reduce it in some higher-risk settings, and it will maximise protection against serious illness. And we believe – as we have seen already in some other countries – it will help encourage take-up of the vaccine.” But that strategy may well backfire. Researchers at Imperial College found that vaccine passports deter a significant minority of people who want autonomy over their bodies. This chimes with research conducted by the Vaccine Confidence Project. The Government’s Winter Plan contained some welcome news. The most draconian schedules of the Coronavirus Act have been revoked, including powers to close schools, allow potentially infectious people to be detained, and restrictions on gatherings and events. The times are “challenging”, but it is no longer claimed that Covid is the “biggest threat this country has faced in peacetime history”. But the policy is vague, and the language rife with “nudges”. We will move from Plan A to Plan B if the NHS comes under “unsustainable pressure”. It’s under pressure every winter, so consider yourselves put on notice.
At this point, Plan B looks inevitable. For Patrick Fagan, a behavioural scientist at Goldsmiths, University of London, it’s a classic example of what he calls the “foot-in-the-door” technique. “Firstly, it makes us accept Plan A, because compared to Plan B, it looks more reasonable,” he told me. “Then, once we have accepted and acclimatised to Plan A, we are more likely to then accept Plan B, because it is just one extra step on top of the commitment we’ve already made.” He also thinks discussion of Plan B might help ministers with the “exposure effect... simply by talking about the measures... the Government makes them more familiar and therefore more psychologically acceptable”.
Bizarrely, after 18 months, we’re still trapped in a Groundhog Day of modelling and worst-case scenarios. On Sept 21 2020, Prof Chris Whitty and Prof Patrick Vallance warned of infections hitting 50,000 per day by mid-october in their “Shock and Awe” presentation. When the day arrived, the moving average was 16,228. The big numbers both fuel the policies and justify them. It doesn’t matter that there are more optimistic scenarios, or that the modelling has limitations, because the first scary headline sticks in the brain. It’s an example of what behavioural psychologists call “salience” – the tendency of our brain to focus on what is novel and risky.
“Since the beginning of the pandemic, it seems many modelling assumptions, such as the infection fatality rate, have been quite pessimistic,” says Dr Alex De Figueiredo, who conducts statistical analyses for the Vaccine Confidence Project. “I think this has been why many of the predictions – such as hospitalisations and deaths – have been overstated. It also appears there has been little effort to validate forecasts out-of-sample, such as applying the models to Sweden or Florida, who have had far fewer restrictions.”
Never-ending question marks hover over travel, keeping a whole industry adrift. Double-vaccinated travellers will no longer need expensive and inconvenient PCR tests, ministers announced last month. Many will delight in the news, and it sounds sensible on the surface. However, the previously infected do not benefit from the exemption, causing me to question whether this is really a case of “following the science”.
Instead, it looks like an incentive, a classic nudge, to encourage jabs. The vaccinated are rewarded and the unvaccinated are punished. Bearing in mind that negative tests and prior infection could suffice, this decision reeks of disdain for personal autonomy.
As we move into November and then the festive season, I wouldn’t be surprised to see ministers on television, urging us to follow restrictions in order to “save Christmas”, as they did last year. We must be good boys and girls if we want Father Christmas to come. And be aware, right now, the nudgers are drafting our collective New Year’s Resolutions.