ABSTRACT
This chapter examines how methodological choices in infectious disease modelling during the Pandemic were shaped not only by scientific reasoning but also by institutional influence and professional rivalries. It compares two broad modelling approaches – mechanistic and descriptive – and shows how the “mechanistic turn” in epidemiology became dominant through the prestige and reach of key London-based institutions. Using the controversy over the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) model as a case study, the authors detail how proponents of one modelling approach publicly attacked a rival group’s methods. The episode illustrates how positional power, training networks, and public platforms can entrench a preferred approach, narrowing the range of options available to policy-makers. The chapter provides a vivid demonstration of how method can become politicized, setting the stage for the methodological rigidity explored in the next chapter.
