Crown and herd immunity: experts advise only “specifically protect” the weakest

Epidemic experts collect signatures online for their idea of ​​developing herd immunity and “targeted protection” in the fight against corona.

Since the beginning of the Corona-Pandemie there are always voices in favor of achieving one Herdenimmunität as the best way to end the global emergency. But this idea has always been rejected by other scientists and also by most of the politically responsible. Now bring two epidemiologists from the US and one Epidemiologin Britain on the subject again.

In an open letter titled “Great Barrington Declaration“They are opposed to strict population measures to contain the population Corona-Pandemie and recommend instead a “targeted protection” (in the original: “Focused protection”), which should allow most people to return to normal life.

People with underlying diseases should protect themselves against corona

“Targeted protection” in this case means that the most vulnerable older people and people with certain Basic diseases needs to be protected. The “Great Barrington Declaration“Sunetra Gupta from Oxford University (Great Britain), Jay Bhattacharya of the Stanford University and Martin Kulldorff from Harvard University (both US). They collect additional signatures online for their strategy. As of noon on Sunday, around 7,700 scientists, 18,000 practicing doctors and 290,000 citizens of the rest of the population had signed the “Declaration of Greater Barrington”; many of them are from the United Kingdom and the United States.

All three authors argue that the “current lock policy“Have” devastating effects on public health “in the short and long term. As examples, they cite” lower vaccination rates in children, worse evolution of cardiovascular diseases, fewer cancer screenings and a deterioration in mental health “All this will lead to an” increase in excess mortality “in the coming years.

Crown: Isolation of the weak is viewed critically

The “disadvantaged” and the young are the most affected. Maintaining strict measures until a vaccine is available will cause “irreparable harm,” predict Gupta, Bhattacharya and Kulldorff. “Therefore, our goal should be to minimize mortality and social damage until we achieve herd immunity.” This should be done by those who “have a minimum Death risk“by COVID-19 they can resume their previous life without restrictions, while the “elderly and frail” are protected. This should work, among other things, by deploying personnel with acquired immunity to nursing homes and conducting frequent testing of visitors from abroad. Older people living at home should receive “groceries and other essentials” there.

Regardless of how “targeted protection” or, to put it more cruelly, isolation of the weak is ethically evaluated, other scientists critically consider the concept of herd immunity. The medical portal quotes “DocCheck” the organization “Independent sage“- a group of professionals who advocate for transparency in research and independent recommendations as well Crown it begins – with the warning that herd immunity without vaccination is associated with “immense risks” – and not only for vulnerable groups, but also for the rest of the population.

“It’s a very bad idea,” says Michael Head, who works at the University of Southampton investigates global health, in front of the Science Media Center (SMC) on the proposal to protect only the vulnerable. This concept will promote inequality in society and will also ignore the fact that many people, including the very young, have to grapple with the long-term consequences of the Covid 19 disease. Head also notes that in Britain between the 20th and the 30 percent of the population considers itself At-risk group they must be evaluated and protected accordingly.

Collective immunity to coronavirus: “illusions”

Stephen Griffin, a physician at the University of Leeds, asks: “How the heck are we going to logistically identify those at risk and separate them from the rest of society?” Apart from that, “history taught us” that such separation within societies “even with good intentions” often leads to “suffering”, as the SMC quotes it. Rupert Beale, group leader of the infection laboratory at the Francis Crick Institute in London, also doubts the “feasibility” of “targeted protection” and the possibility of developing herd immunity. “That is an illusion.” In general, he sees the “Great Barrington Declaration“As a” useless contribution to the debate. “

Virologist Jeremy Rossmann of the University of Kent cautions that it is not even known whether herd immunity is possible with Corona. It is not known how long immunity lasts after infection has passed, and reinfections have already been reported. Other scientists also expressed similar concerns to the Science Media Center.

Julian Tang, expert on Respiratory diseases at the University of Leicester, however, he shows understanding for the concerns that led Gupta, Bhattacharya and Kulldorff to explain them. You may also gain something from the idea of ​​targeted protection, but he says that without additional tools like vaccines and antiviral drugs, you can’t see “how vulnerable groups can be protected in a practical, reliable and safe way.”