Two top scientists argue for and against Britain trying to achieve herd immunity

Scientists are divided on the limitation of the coronavirus after thousands have called on herd immunity strategies to lift them.

More than 3,000 scientists and 5,000 doctors, including dozens of people in the UK, have signed the Great Barrington Declaration calling for the return of life to all but the elderly and the vulnerable.

They warned that they would worsen cardiovascular and mental health and missed the procedure during the blockade.

But there are more scientists who oppose bidding.

Some are calling for more stringent measures, such as a “circuit breaker” lockdown to stop the spread of the virus.

They argue that there is no evidence that immunity persists after the development of Covid-19 and that it is impossible to protect the vulnerability if the virus spreads.

This reflects widespread debate among our politicians and in communities across the country and around the world.

Here, two key experts argue for and against this week’s declaration.

For Herd Immunity: Professor Mike Hume, a signatory and academic at the University of Cambridge

There is no doubt that Covid-19 will kill people-mainly older people, people with underlying health, and disproportionately men like me.

There is no doubt that Covid-19 can lead to persistent adverse health conditions of varying durations and severity for others.

But for the vast majority, especially those under the age of 60, Covid-19 is not afraid.

Young adults and children are much more likely to die of a car accident, suicide, or cancer.

However, the authoritarian Covid-19 policy measures pursued by many governments, such as the United Kingdom, may have short-term and long-term implications that can seriously damage the physical and mental health of the people. There is no mistake.

These include lower vaccination rates in childhood, worsening cardiovascular outcomes, lower cancer screenings, and worse mental health. Young people at a social disadvantage are the heaviest burdens in the current policy system.

The Barrington Declaration calls for another approach called centralized protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be a central purpose of public health response. We recognize that the elimination of Covid-19 is not a practical purpose. Vaccines are never fully effective and we recognize that many choose not to vaccinate.

In any case, vaccines will benefit too late to prevent the immense harm currently being caused in a society where current UK government policy is perpetuated.

In contrast, intensive protection balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity. We are not trying to eliminate Covid-19 from society.

Instead, it provides a targeted way to maximize the overall physical, mental and emotional health of the general public.

This allows people with a minimal risk of Covid death and serious illness to live normally and boost their immunity through natural infections. To lower the threshold of herd immunity, everyone needs to take simple hygiene measures.

At the same time, intensive protection aims to better protect the highest-risk people, such as long-term care facilities and hospitals.

The national blockade may have been justified in March. Seven months after we are better aware of the nature of Covid’s risk, continuing such authoritarian measures will seriously damage the country’s social structure and public health.

Against Herd Immunity: Dr. Michael Head, Leading Global Health Expert at the University of Southampton

The Barrington Declaration is based on the false assumption that government and the scientific community want a large blockade to continue until vaccines are available.

Lockdown is only used when the transmission rate is high.

You now have some knowledge of the best way to deal with new outbreaks. Most national and local interventions are far “lighter” than the full restraint seen in the UK, for example, in the spring of 2020.

The people behind the Barrington Declaration are advocates of herd immunity within the population.

“People who are not vulnerable should be allowed to resume their normal lives immediately,” they said. The idea is that vulnerable people in society are protected from dangerous viral infections.

That’s a very bad idea.

Even with the intensive blockade, it was found that so many people were killed and the elderly were at the mercy of it.

Approximately 20% -30% of the UK population is classified as vulnerable to severe Covid-19 infections.

About 8% of the UK population has some immunity to this novel Coronavirus, And its immunity will weaken over time and will be insufficient to prevent a second infection.

Strategies for herd immunity will also promote further inequality throughout society, such as black, Asian and ethnic minority communities.

The Declaration also ignores the new burden of “long covid”.

We know that many people, even younger populations who initially suffered from mild illness, suffer from the long-term consequences of Covid-19 infection.

The independent SAGE Group is one of many scientists who eloquently point out many reasons why these initiatives are ultimately harmful and are misleading about the basis of scientific evidence.

Some countries, such as South Korea and New Zealand, manage pandemics relatively well. Their strategy does not include simply letting the virus run wild, hoping that the asthma community and the elderly will hide somewhere for 12 months.

They have a proactive approach to “testing and tracking” to reduce the impact of new outbreaks and a good public health message from the government to their population.