The lockdown response to the upsurge of COVID-19 cases in the UK in March 2020 brought an immediate end to my current research project’s on-farm, in-depth social scientific fieldwork in the North of England. This research, funded by the Welcome Trust,1 is itself focused on persistent, endemic infectious diseases—but in our case in cattle populations. As a team of social scientists, historians, and economic and epidemiological modellers, we explore the history of Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (BVD) in the UK, examine how farmers, vets and other professionals attempt to deal with BVD in the present, and attempt to model infection patterns and how farmer behaviours affect the transmission and prevention of this disease. BVD can be transmitted between animals or passed from a cow to her calf in utero. Its effects vary in severity but it is linked to reduced productivity, various symptoms of ill-health, and increased susceptibility to other illnesses. As a social scientist on the team, my thinking on BVD is influenced by discussions of biosecurity, or ‘making life safe’ (Bingham et al. 2008, p. 1528), a process involving anticipating what threats to life might occur, being prepared to respond to their occurrence, and being ready to make interventions to reduce the effects. Discussion of biosecurity (e.g. Hinchliffe et al. 2016) has described three overlapping ways of attempting to make life safe, and although these were originally conceived in relation to protecting of human life, they, and the concept of biosecurity, have more recently tended to be associated with attempts to secure animal life. They are, first, exclusion (preventing the ill moving into a space); second, inclusion (quarantining the ill within a space); and third, normalisation (managing a disease through interventions such as vaccination). As COVID-19 took hold, we have very rapidly seen the application of all of these modes of biosecurity, which I had been thinking about in rather abstract terms and in relation to animals, back onto our own lives in very significant and concrete ways, forcing a recalibration of my perspective on animal and human infectious diseases together. We see the exclusion, inclusion and normalisation practiced by farmers in relation to their animals, being practiced by governments in relation to us through border closures, ‘social distancing’, quarantine, self-isolation, and in debates and research surrounding treatments, testing regimes, vaccination, ‘herdimmunity’ etc. Our research has been focusing on an animal disease which we have been told (e.g. by vets) should be relatively easy to eradicate through testing and/or vaccination—but BVD hasn’t been eradicated, it persists. We ask why does it persist if it’s so easy to control? COVID-19, on a different scale and rapacity as far as humans are concerned, opens up those same questions of why these things are so hard to deal with in practice, because of the complexity of viral infections and their relationships with vulnerable bodies, the logistics of organising medical equipment and care, and the messiness and recalcitrance of human behaviour in relation to ‘lockdown’ regimes. Exemplifying this human-animal parallel, mobility is crucial in thinking about infection. For an agricultural and food system to function people and animals must move, in ‘normal’ circumstances and even in lockdown, in order for food production to continue, but at the same time movement and the mingling of human and animal bodies facilitates infection. In lockdown, too, addressing viral diseases in animals may be even harder as animal biosecurity and care become more challenging because of attempts to manage human biosecurity, let alone due to human illness affecting farm work. This article is part of the Topical Collection: Agriculture, Food & Covid-19.

中文翻译：

---

COVID-19 和对传染性农场动物疾病研究的转变观点

对 2020 年 3 月英国 COVID-19 病例激增的封锁反应立即结束了我目前在英格兰北部的农场、深入的社会科学实地工作。这项由 Welcome Trust 资助的研究 1 本身专注于持续的地方性传染病——但在我们的案例中是牛群。作为一个由社会科学家、历史学家、经济和流行病学建模者组成的团队，我们探索了英国牛病毒性腹泻 (BVD) 的历史，研究了农民、兽医和其他专业人士目前如何应对 BVD，并试图模拟感染模式以及农民行为如何影响这种疾病的传播和预防。BVD 可以在动物之间传播或在子宫内从母牛传给她的小牛。其影响的严重程度各不相同，但它与生产力下降、各种健康不良症状以及对其他疾病的易感性增加有关。作为团队中的一名社会科学家，我对 BVD 的看法受到有关生物安全或“使生命安全”（Bingham 等人，2008 年，第 1528 页）的讨论的影响，该过程涉及预测可能发生的对生命的威胁，并做好准备对它们的发生作出反应，并准备采取干预措施以减少影响。生物安全的讨论（例如 Hinchliffe 等人，2016 年）描述了试图使生命安全的三种重叠方式，尽管这些最初是为了保护人类生命而设想的，但它们和生物安全的概念最近倾向于与保护动物生命的企图有关。他们是，首先，排斥（防止病人进入空间）；第二，包容（将病人隔离在一个空间内）；第三，正常化（通过疫苗接种等干预措施管理疾病）。随着 COVID-19 的流行，我们非常迅速地看到所有这些生物安全模式的应用，我一直在以相当抽象的术语和与动物有关的方式思考这些模式，以非常重要和具体的方式回到我们自己的生活中，迫使我重新调整我对动物和人类传染病的看法。我们看到农民对他们的动物实行的排斥、包容和正常化，政府通过边境关闭、“社会疏远”、隔离、自我隔离以及在围绕治疗、测试制度的辩论和研究中对我们实行, 疫苗接种, 'herdimmunity' 等。我们的研究一直集中在我们被告知（例如兽医）应该通过测试和/或疫苗接种相对容易根除的动物疾病上——但 BVD 并没有被根除，它仍然存在。我们会问，如果它这么容易控制，为什么它会持续存在？就人类而言，COVID-19 的规模和贪婪程度不同，它提出了同样的问题，即为什么这些事情在实践中如此难以处理，因为病毒感染的复杂性及其与脆弱身体的关系，组织医疗设备和护理的后勤工作，以及与“封锁”制度相关的人类行为的混乱和顽固。举例说明这种人与动物的平行关系，流动性对于思考感染至关重要。为了使农业和食品系统发挥作用，人和动物必须移动，在“正常”情况下，甚至在封锁期间，为了继续粮食生产，但与此同时，人类和动物身体的移动和混合会促进感染。同样，在封锁期间，解决动物的病毒性疾病可能更加困难，因为由于试图管理人类生物安全，动物生物安全和护理变得更具挑战性，更不用说人类疾病影响农场工作了。本文是专题合集的一部分：农业、食品和 Covid-19。由于试图管理人类生物安全，动物生物安全和护理变得更具挑战性，更不用说影响农场工作的人类疾病，解决动物病毒性疾病可能更加困难。本文是专题合集的一部分：农业、食品和 Covid-19。由于试图管理人类生物安全，动物生物安全和护理变得更具挑战性，更不用说影响农场工作的人类疾病，解决动物病毒性疾病可能更加困难。本文是专题合集的一部分：农业、食品和 Covid-19。