Search for commonalities in the discussion of “herd immunity”

A complete blockade may not be a sustainable way to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, but experts say which public health interventions the United States should impose to reduce viral infections in the coming months. Still discussing.

Medical and public health professionals have challenged the methods set out in the Great Barrington Declaration and the John Snow Memorandum of Understanding. Virtual panel On Friday, there was controversy over whether the United States should adopt “intensive protection” legislation to achieve natural herd immunity or continue further restrictions. The panel was sponsored by Johns Hopkins University.

Dr. Jay Batacharya, MD, Health Economist and Co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration at Stanford University, California, said: “Herd immunity is the end point of this pandemic no matter which strategy you choose.” The only immediate question is how to get there the safest. “

The· Great Barrington Declaration, Which one Written by Bhattacharya and two other scientists In early October, we will take protective measures against vulnerable groups while encouraging the government to lift blockade restrictions on young and healthy people. This “focused protection” method allows COVID-19 to spread to a less deadly population and achieve a wide range of vaccine-independent herd immunity.

The· Jon Snow Memorandum of Understanding Written in response to a proposal for natural infections to achieve herd immunity called “dangerous fallacy unsubstantiated by scientific evidence”. A memorandum of understanding, signed by more than 6,400 supporters from scientists and health professionals, does not encourage a complete blockade, but states that restrictions should continue to curb viral infections and ban further confusion. Advocates for target and economic programs.

At the debate, Batacharya defended his proposal to achieve herd immunity through natural infections in young and healthy people, stating that there are significant differences in the threat of infection in the elderly compared to the younger population. ..

“Infectious diseases are a serious problem for both the elderly and those with certain chronic illnesses,” said Batacharya. “It’s much milder for the young population under the age of 70.”

“Zero COVID results” are not possible, so allowing young and healthy individuals to resume normal activities will deprive children of school attendance, reduce childhood immunization rates, He said it could prevent further incidental damage from the blockade, such as a ban on people. From seeking preventive medicine.

But David Daudi, MD, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who defended John Snow Memorandum, argued that it wasn’t just the elderly in long-term care and nursing homes that were vulnerable.

“It seems feasible or correct to label some people as vulnerable and others as not vulnerable,” Daudi, who has not signed the Jon Snow Memorandum of Understanding, said in a panel. No, “he said. “I think vulnerabilities are spectral and not really age-based alone.” The best way to protect older people and those with underlying illnesses is to reduce infections in the community and cause outbreaks. He argued that it would impose temporary restrictions on the area in which it is located.

Daudi added that the United States needs to use diagnostic tests to help public health professionals understand where it’s best to respond. “We need to use this to figure out where the infection is occurring, where the case is occurring, and therefore how to focus the response. Without knowing it, we need to focus on reducing the infection. It’s very difficult to come up with a response, “he said.

Infectious disease epidemiologists at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Stefan Baral, MD, and MPH, claim a “pre-restriction resource” position, and it is most feasible for the federal government to provide resources to states and smaller jurisdictions. Said that it was a good solution. Local public health intervention.

Valal said the infection had the distinctive feature of “weakening and demonstrating all inequality that exists.” He added that there has been little or no evidence-based intervention focused on the needs of individuals or marginalized groups.

“The fundamental problem I’ve seen with COVID is that we want individual people to take on what should be social costs,” Baral said. He said the United States generally seeks people who have no problems with quarantine and quarantine, but authorities have not provided them with a practical means of doing so.

“We are asking people who are already at financial limits to absorb social costs,” Baral said. “That disconnect between social costs and personal interests doesn’t feel like a sustainable strategy to me.” He said paid leave for care facility employees and individuals in quarantine, especially. We proposed housing support for people living in multi-generational homes.

In response to the US’s approach to a centrist approach, Batacharya said “focused protection is a balance,” recognizing both the harm of the blockade and the risk of the virus to vulnerable populations.

Daudi agreed that it was important to target this approach. “We need to think of ways to focus on protection,” he said. “But it’s not a one-size-fits-all strategy.”