Blockade Could Leave People More Vulnerable to Dangerous Viruses, Oxford Epidemiologist Warns

An Oxford epidemiologist warned that long periods of blockage could weaken the immune system and leave people vulnerable to future pandemics.

Professor Sunetra Gupta said that intense social estrangement could leave people without exposure to germs and not develop defenses against new viruses.

He added that “if we go back to the point where we have no exposure,” society would be “like groups of trees waiting to be set on fire.”

Professor Gupta’s team produced research suggesting that the coronavirus had arrived in the UK in December and caused significant ‘collective immunity’.

The results of its modeling implied that the triggering of a national blockade three months later was too late or unnecessary.

It rivaled with advice given by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, whose projections of 500,000 deaths led Boris Johnson to impose a blockade.

Professor Ferguson, who was fired from his position at SAGE after ignoring the blocking rules, later told parliamentarians that Sweden achieved roughly the same coronavirus suppression without a UK-style blockade.

Britain has recorded 43,514 coronavirus-associated deaths to date.

Professor Sunetra Gupta said that intense social estrangement could leave people unexposed to germs and not develop defenses against new viruses.

Professor Gupta added that “if we go back to the point where we have no exposure”, society would be “like groups of trees waiting to be burned” (stock)

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Professor Gupta argued that international travel helps build defenses against new and emerging viruses.

“This is a warning not to assume that the situation where we don’t have regular pathogen attacks puts us in a better position,” he said.

‘If we go back to the point where we have no exposure, where we keep everything away and return to a state of existing communities as relatively isolated, we are like groups of trees waiting to be set on fire.

“The type of immunity that protects you against very serious symptoms and death can be acquired through exposure to related pathogens rather than the virus itself.”

Professor Gupta said: “ The current conditions for the spread of a virus have been improved by current global mixing practices with world travel.

Professor Gupta’s model rivaled the advice given by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, whose projections of 500,000 deaths led Boris Johnson to impose a blockade.

Boris Johnson (pictured with Rishi Sunak, June 26) ordered a national closure on March 23

‘But, what has also been strengthened is the level of cross-protection we get from exposure to different errors.

‘In general, we are in a better place with all these international trips. Therefore, the conditions under which a pathogen could kill many people have been reduced. ”

He also stated that living in a “state very similar to the running of the bulls” in 1918 “created the conditions for the Spanish flu to come and kill 50 million people.”

Professor Gupta’s model suggested that the virus arrived in the UK in December, about two weeks before the first reported case and one month before the first reported death.

This means that it might have had enough time to spread widely, with many Britons gaining immunity. Professor Gupta had recommended tests to evaluate the theory.

In May, the Oxford epidemiologist said companies could reopen immediately without risking a second increase in Covid-19 infections.

She said to Unherd, “ I think there is a chance that we have done better by doing nothing at all, or at least doing something different, which would have been paying attention to protecting the vulnerable, having thought about protecting the vulnerable 30 or 40 years ago when we started cutting hospital beds.

‘The roots of this go back a long, long time ago.

“The government’s defense is that this (the Imperial model) was a hypothetical worst-case scenario. I agree that it was the worst-case scenario possible, or at least possible.

‘The question is, should we act in the worst case, given the costs of the blockade? It seems to me that since the costs of the blockade are increasing. ‘