One of the original authors of the letter was Harvard T.H. There are many ways to control the coronavirus epidemic, but “uncontrolled transmission is not one of them,” said William Henaj, an epidemiologist at the Chan School of Public Health.
Dr. Nah, an infectious disease physician at Boston Medical Center and an associate professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine. “The sheer number of public health people and health care people will never say they believe in the immune system of the crowd through infection,” said Nahid Bhadelia, an infectious disease physician at Boston Medical Center and associate professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine. .
One of the original authors of the letter, Bhadelia, said that “in the absence of accountability,” the proponents of the strategy “want to let it explode, but have no plans to do so when health systems collapse.”
The New York Times reports that President Donald Trump’s scientific adviser, Scott Atlas, a powerful figure within the White House, and administration officials have refused to advocate for mob immunity, but have expressed these views in a document called the Great Barrington Declaration. Was developed at a think-tank meeting in the city of Massachusetts, Great Barrington.
The document argues that authorities should allow the spread of coronavirus in young healthy people while protecting the elderly and vulnerable, thus she gained flock immunity, to the point where enough people are infected for the stall transmission of the virus. The message comes in the wake of protests over President Trump’s campaign move toward a lockdown, despite struggling with the country’s new virus.
The John Snow Memorandum argues that “any epidemic management strategy for COVID-19 based on immunity from natural infection is flawed.”
The letter said the herd’s immunity could lead to “significant” illness and death in the entire population. (Some experts estimate that it kills more than 1 million people in the United States.)
The letter also includes other problems with the approach, arguing that it is not clear how long the immune system lasts after you become ill, thus increasing the likelihood of an unpredictable risk for a sensitive population and recurrent epidemics; The long-term effects on those who get and survive the virus are unknown; A wave of infection will overwhelm health care systems; And more healthcare workers will fall ill, die or be traumatized as they treat a steady stream of patients.
The idea of mob immunity may be what people, fed up with coronavirus bans, want to hear, Henag said, but it’s “unfortunately not possible.”
“It gives the idea that we can only go back to normal, and it doesn’t say anything about how to do its important part,” he said, defending the weak.
If a virus would be allowed to spread, which could kill people’s grandparents, he said, “You should give some clues about how you’re going to prevent grandparents’ infection.”
He also said the proposal was “extremely relevant to a large number of young people becoming infected” while studies suggest that there are long-term effects on younger people, including higher heart muscle rates.
“It’s a shame,” he said. To suggest that this is something that is simply against public health principles. “
Dr. Brigham and the internal physician at the Women’s Hospital. Abrar Karan said that for many reasons, the Great Barrington Declaration is not a “smart declaration”. That’s not the answer we want right now. “
“Inflammation of the heart, brain haze, lung scarring, ongoing fatigue – these are all symptoms that you can see in a wide variety of patients of different ages and we are still trying to understand these effects,” he said.
If hundreds of thousands or millions of people are allowed to get sick, “you will see many of these effects,” he said.
He also said, “They are proposing something that is completely imaginary. That’s not practical, and they have no way of actually implementing this. “
The discussion of the idea of herd immunity is “attracting and removing attention with limited resources, time and attention” that can be devoted to advancing the fight against the virus through measures such as testing, tracing, isolation, mask-wear, eye protection and ventilation. Is. , He also said.
“When it comes to something like the Great Barrington Declaration, it gets everyone’s attention for many days.” “Every day we lose to this virus is a rapidly evolving day because the virus spreads so fast.”
“The Harald is not an immune plan and the Great Barrington Declaration is the best aspirational thinking,” said Eli Murray, an epidemiologist at Boston University.
“Infected Hurl represents a failure to control the immune system and causes great loss of life. It is certainly not possible for infected people to be infected when the rest of the population is infected, ”he said in an e-mail.
“Furthermore, we don’t even fully understand the full spectrum of COVID vulnerabilities – many other healthy people are suffering the serious long-term consequences of having a mild infection right now.”
Bhadelia said the estimate of the potential million deaths from the proposal was “probably very accurate.”
“It’s a lot of people, and death is not the same result. Before we reach the death toll, hospitalized numbers will drown us, ”he said.
He said the proposal has been described as an anti-lockdown proposal. But without plans to rescue vulnerable people or treat people who become seriously ill, he said, “I really see that as a declaration that is pushing us toward a lockdown.”
Dr Ashish Zai, dean of Brown University School of Public Health, said in a tweet last week that the Great Barrington Declaration was “junk science”. And like junk food, it tastes great but has zero nutritional value. “
Content from The New York Times was used in this report.
Martin Finuken can be reached at [email protected].
