I can only assume they've looked at the pitch and decided they're simply not going to be bowling any seam at all. Which I'd have more faith in if our spinners had any sort of track record to base that faith on.Seems an insane decision, tbh.
Not only the risk that he breaks down in this Test, but the risk to his longer term fitness, from over-bowling him. That or they risk Stokes' knee by trying to squeeze a few overs out of him.
The team is incredibly unbalanced in that regard - partly because the 'part time skills' of the batters they've chosen do not include any seam bowling (save for the injured Stokes). A Collingwood, or even a Trott (or Harry Brook) would have helped a little.
By my reckoning they have chosen:
FOUR (specialist or occasional) wicket-keepers, in Foakes, Bairstow, Pope and Duckett
SIX (specialist or occasional) spinners, in Leach, Ahmed, Hartley, Root, Crawley (R Off), Duckett (R Leg)
ONE fit seamer, in Mark Wood.
Bizarre
That said, I think there's far more value (and entertainment) on a turning pitch in having an actual spinner bowling than some bang average medium pacer wang down a few just for the sake of filling in a few overs.
I stand to be corrected, but I don't remember Wood's in match fitness ever being much of an issue (unlike Robinson, for example).
Obviously easy to say with hindsight, but I'm sure lots of people thought/said at the time that Stokes should have missed the world Cup in order to have his operation earlier so there might have been a chance of him bowling in this series.