[ad_1]
A team of professors from renowned universities caused a stir with their criticism of the lockdown policy in early October. Now another group of scientists is fighting back.
One of more than 80 supporters of the “John Snow Memorandum”: the infectiologist Isabella Eckerle of the University of Geneva.
Photo: Anthony Anex (Keystone)
Knapp It has been two weeks since a group of teachersdifferent Elite universities published the “Great Barrington Declaration” and with it caused a stir. Since then, nearly 500,000 “concerned citizens” like them in the Website and more than 30,000 medical professionals signed this statement.
northUN has a movement against critics of current corona policy and supporters of herd immunityttheory formed. In the transfer “Memorandum of John Snow” 80 Representatives of science and practice point to the constant threat of the coronavirus and warn against trivialization. John Snow, considered the father of modern epidemiologists and whose analyzes were instrumental in overcoming the cholera epidemic in London in the 19th century, is the namesake.
There are also numerous renowned Swiss scientists such as approximately the infectologist Isabella Eckerle from the University of Genevathat have favored epidemiologist Emma Hodcroft vthen the University of Basel orthat of epidemiologist Christian Althaus from the University of Bern.
The authors address in their to write, which appeared Wednesday in the renowned trade journal “The Lancet,” did not directly identify the signatories of the “Great Barrington Declaration.” The timing of publication, as well as the detailed examination of the topic of herd immunity suggests a connection to the document from his professional colleagues.
They caused a stir with their criticism of the crown policy of many countries. They warn of “irreparable damage” if the measures are maintained. As an alternative schlagen sthat is, an approach that they «Faccused Protection ‘, translated as directed protection. The strategy is largely equivalent to a contamination (Can this work? The federal working group Covid-19 has calculated it).
Older and vulnerable population groups must be largely isolated and therefore protected. For the rest of the population, however, at least among them, normality would reign again. Regular exposure to the virus should result in long-term herd immunity, which should also protect those at risk, according to the theory.
“Very unethical”
The authors of the “John Snow Memorandum” again describe this idea as a “dangerous fallacy”. “Any strategy for dealing with a pandemic that relies on immunity through natural contagion is flawed,” the memo reads. Because: “An uncontrolled spread among the younger generation carries the risk of significant infections and deaths throughout the population.” Furthermore, permanent isolation of a certain population group is “practically impossible” and “highly unethical,” the authors note.
Also, it is not clear how long protective immunity will last after a Covid 19 infection. Decreasing immunity would increase in the long term. recurring epidemics lead and therefore represent a risk for vulnerable population groups (read herewhy we are not so protected from coronavirus). In addition, scientists point to the risk of long-term consequences, “even in previously healthy young people.” (Read more here).
According to scientists fcoincidence The safest way to get an effective vaccine and medicine is simply to contain the virus. “We cannot afford distractions that undermine an effective response; acting quickly based on the evidence is essential. ”
