Why do elite scientists reject the strategy of developing herd immunity?

At first glance, it may not be more logical. The coronavirus is more dangerous for the elderly and / or the sick, so we could only protect them so that the rest of society leads a normal life.

After all, it would help revive the economy, as well as reduce the psychological effects of various restrictions and limitations. Eventually, as the virus spreads between the healthy and the poor, they will gain herd immunity, which would already benefit everyone.

This is the strategy proposed by an international group of scientists who have signed up The Great Barrier Declaration. This document is just the latest move in the ongoing battle for ideas on how to fight a pandemic.

A statement sounds, ambitious proposals

The statement proposes postponing strategies to quell the spread of the virus until better times: testing, contact tracing, new drugs, vaccines. It is said that a completely different approach is needed.

The paper was written at the American Institute for Economic Research, located in Greater Barrington, Massachusetts. The institute is right-wing and defends a small governmental apparatus, a free market and broad individual rights.

The subsequent statement of thousands by Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University, Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorf, professor of medicine at Harvard, number in the thousands.

Not all signatures are authentic: The pranksters included British Health Secretary Matt Hancock, who was criticized for his incompetence during the pandemic, and the fictional Booker Clownn of Trump University.

However, the proposed strategy is being discussed at the highest political level.

For example, on Monday, US Health Secretary Alex Azar said the statement demonstrated that “the correct tactic for the Donald Trump administration is to aggressively protect the weakest but allow offices and schools to function.”

The declaration states that “selective storage” is the most sensible way to reduce the number of deaths and damage to society until we achieve herd immunity, when enough people are already resistant to the virus and the pandemic recedes.

Bounce back to reality

However, the ideas presented in the statement are not taken seriously by the wider scientific community.

“His proposed strategy is on the fringes of science,” said James Naismith, professor of structural biology at the University of Oxford. It is possible that the same errors are possible as in the case of testing and monitoring: describing what is intended is much easier than implementing it.

Michael Head, a researcher at the University of Southampton, adds that he believes the statement is based on the false belief that governments and scientists want to keep people closed until the vaccine comes out.

“Now that we have some knowledge about how to manage new outbreaks, many interventions are much easier than, for example, a complete closure of the country. We saw such closures in the spring, “says M. Head.

Protecting the most vulnerable has always been part of the UK’s strategy. But many people died in nursing homes, many were infected through family members, showing that segregation alone is not enough.

He is one of many scholars skeptical of the idea that the most vulnerable members of society can be identified and protected.

“It just came to our attention then. Even after the introduction of very strict restrictions, a large number of deaths were accounted for and it was older people who suffered the most,” says M. Head. a quarter of the population should be considered vulnerable in the case of COVID-19.

Jonathan Read, a biostatistician at Lancaster University, is also concerned: “Protecting the most vulnerable has always been part of the UK’s strategy. But many people died in the nursing home, many were infected through family members, showing that segregation alone is not enough. “

Resistance is not eternal

As already mentioned, the concept of herd immunity is based on the idea that the virus stops spreading if enough people are already resistant to it.

At the beginning of a pandemic, even before the restrictions were announced, a COVID-19 patient could transmit the virus to an average of three other people. But if two of these trios are resistant to the virus, the outbreak is quickly eradicated.

However, scientists are concerned about the coronavirus because no one yet knows how long a person has been resistant to the virus. It is also unknown what part of society needs to be resilient for a pandemic to begin to subside.

“We know that immunity to coronaviruses fades over time and re-infection is possible. Therefore, vulnerable groups in society will not be protected sustainably until there is a vaccine, says epidemiologist Rupert Beale.” impossible to identify who is vulnerable, it is impossible to fully protect them. “

The researchers suggest not rushing to announce that COVID-19 does not pose a risk to young, healthy people. Long-term complications are possible that will interfere with life for many decades.

Evidence suggests that, in the UK at least, new cases spread rapidly from one age group to the elderly, and then hospitals suddenly clog and people die. So according to Beale, the scientists who signed the statement should think honestly about what they propose.

Another epidemiologist, Harvard’s William Hanage, likens the proposed strategy to storing relics in a fire by taking them into a room, not putting them out, but lighting even more flames.

“If the flame outside that room could be controlled, then maybe all the sparks could be extinguished. But such an approach only kindles the fire; after all, too many sparks can explode and only ashes will remain, ”said W. Hanage.

Finally, the researchers suggest not rushing to announce that COVID-19 does not pose a risk to young, healthy people. Yes, the chance of death is small, but long-term complications that will interfere with life for many decades are possible.