[ad_1]
The closure of society and the slowdown of the world economy in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents a great mistake, argue some prestigious scientists from the world of epidemiology. Barrington’s Great Declaration, released last week by scientists arguing that most of us should revert to our pre-COVID ways of life, has generated a lot of attention and controversy.
The statement is spearheaded by some heavyweights in the scientific community, including Martin Kulldorff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Harvard University, Sunetra Gupta, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, an expert. in public health policy focusing on infectious diseases and professor at Stanford University.
One of the arguments put forward by the three and some 35 co-signers amounts to saying that the cure has been worse than the disease for society as a whole.
“Coming from both the left and the right, and from around the world, we have dedicated our careers to protecting people,” the statement states. “The current lockdown policies are producing devastating short and long-term public health effects. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health, leading to higher excess mortality in the years ahead. , and the working class and the younger members of society bear the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. “
Co-signers represent a large number of scientific disciplines including public health, biostatistics, finance, and psychiatry. Among them are Michael Levitt, PhD (who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2013), Jonas Ludvigsson, MD, Angus Dalgleish, PhD, David Katz, PhD, and Mike Hulme, PhD.
The statement states that the growing knowledge about COVID-19 includes the fact that the elderly and the sick have a “thousand times” greater increase in dying from it than the young. “In fact, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza,” the statement states.
As expected, the rejection of the statement was immediate and fierce. Some members of the scientific community argue that the declaration puts too much faith in the rapid arrival of herd immunity and does not take into account so-called “long-distance carriers”, people who can suffer the effects of the disease for years.
A group of experts, who also brandished impressive credentials, published a response that challenges many of the premises of the statement. For example, Rupert Beale, PhD, of the Francis Crick Institute, said that herd immunity depends on the wide distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine, which has yet to be developed. In his response, Beale also wrote that the “declaration prioritizes only one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the vulnerable – and suggests that we can safely build ‘herd immunity’ in the rest of the population. This is an illusion. Vulnerable people cannot be fully identified and completely isolated. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses declines over time and reinfection is possible, so it is highly unlikely that long-lasting protection of vulnerable people will be achieved by establishing ‘herd immunity’ in the absence of a vaccine. “.
Nonetheless, the statement’s basic premise, which states that lockdowns do more harm than good, resonates with many.
Annie Janvier, PhD, one of the co-signers of the statement and a professor of clinical and pediatric ethics at the University of Montreal, said that “it is not science that seems to be leading what is happening with COVID, it is public opinion and politics”.
The statement states that “Those who are not vulnerable should be able to immediately resume normal life. All people should take simple hygiene measures, such as washing their hands and staying home when they are sick, to lower the threshold for herd immunity. Schools and universities must be open to face-to-face teaching. Extracurricular activities such as sports should be resumed. Low-risk young adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should be opened. Arts, music, sports and other cultural activities must be resumed. Those most at risk can participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection afforded to the vulnerable by those who have developed herd immunity ”.
