Thousands of doctors and scientists agree: the blockade exacerbates public health problems

Three major epidemiologists gathered in Massachusetts on Sunday Great Barrington Declaration, A public call to end the blockade policy and adopt a public health strategy they call “focused protection.”

The declaration gathered at the Stonehouse of the American Institute of Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts was signed by Dr. Martin Kurdorf, Snetra Gupta, Jay Battacharia.

Dr. Kurdolf is a professor of medicine at Harvard University and a biostatistician and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring outbreaks of infectious diseases. Dr. Gupta is a professor at Oxford University and an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and infectious disease modeling. Dr. Bhattacharya is a professor at Stanford University, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focused on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. These three are considered to be one of the top epidemiologists in the world.

The Declaration states that the blockade “has a catastrophic effect” on short-term and long-term public health. “Results (to name a few) include lower vaccination rates in childhood, worsening cardiovascular outcomes, lower cancer screenings, and worse mental health.”

Experts argue that blocking society as a whole is more harmful than good, and public health experts should instead focus on protecting the most vulnerable members of society. “The most compassionate approach to balancing the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is for people with minimal risk of death to build immunity to the virus through natural infections while at the same time living a normal life. To make it possible. The highest risk. “

Since signing the Declaration over the weekend, more than 4,500 medical and public health scientists, 8,400 practitioners, and 118,000 civilians have added names.

You can find the video of the summit here The full declaration can be read below:

“As epidemiologists and public health scholars of infectious diseases, we have serious concerns about the negative effects of the general COVID-19 policy on physical and mental health and recommend an approach called centralized protection. I will.

Coming from both the left and right, and from all over the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current blockade policies have devastating effects on short-term and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood immunization rates, worsening cardiovascular outcomes, lower cancer screenings, and worse mental health. This will increase excessive mortality over the next few years and place the greatest burden on young members of the working class and society. .. Keeping students from school is a serious injustice.

Continuing to implement these measures until the vaccine is available will disproportionately harm the underprivileged and cause irreparable damage.

Fortunately, we have a better understanding of viruses. We know that the vulnerabilities to death from COVID-19 are more than 1000 times higher in the elderly and weaker than in the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less at risk than many other harms, including the flu.

As immunity builds up in the population, the risk of transmission to all, including vulnerable people, decreases. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity, that is, when new infection rates stabilize, and that this can be supported by vaccines (although it depends on the vaccine). I don’t). Therefore, our goal is to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach to balancing the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to help people with the least risk of death build immunity to the virus through natural infections while better protecting the best people. Is to make it possible. Danger. This is called centralized protection.

Adopting measures to protect vulnerable people should be the central objective of a public health response to COVID-19. As an example, nursing homes should use staff with adaptive immunity and frequently perform PCR tests with other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retirees living at home need to have groceries and other necessities delivered to their homes. If possible, they should meet outside the family rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures can be implemented, including approaches to multi-generational households, within the scope and capabilities of public health professionals.

Those who are vulnerable need to be able to immediately resume their normal lives. To lower the threshold of herd immunity, everyone needs to implement simple hygiene measures such as washing hands and staying at home in case of illness. Schools and universities should be open for face-to-face teaching. Extracurricular activities such as sports need to be resumed. Low-risk young adults need to work normally, not from home. Restaurants and other businesses need to open. Art, music, sports and other cultural activities need to be resumed. People at greater risk can participate if they so desire, but society as a whole enjoys the protection given to vulnerable people by those who have built herd immunity. “