Numerous popular scientists and doctors sign open letters against herd immunity proposals

William Hanage, an epidemiologist at Harvard School of Public Health, one of the original authors of the letter, said there are ways to control the coronavirus pandemic, but “uncontrolled infections are not one.” It was.

New York Times Report Scott Atlas, a powerful force within the White House, President Donald Trump’s scientific adviser, and government officials have denied herd immunity, but they praised the idea in a document called the Great Barrington Declaration. did. -Tank meeting in the town of Great Barrington, Massachusetts.

The document argues that authorities should allow the coronavirus to spread to young healthy people, protect the elderly and the vulnerable, and thereby achieve herd immunity. This message is in line with President Trump’s opposition on the road to the blockade campaign, despite the current struggle with the new outbreak of viruses.

John Snow Memorandum claims that “a pandemic management strategy that relies on immunity from natural infections of COVID-19 is flawed.”

The herd immunity approach can lead to “serious” illness and death across the entire population, the letter said. (Some experts say Estimated to lead to the death of more than 1 million people In the United States. )

The letter also addresses many other issues with this approach, and the duration of immunity after illness is unclear, thus opening up the possibility of an indefinite risk to vulnerable populations and recurrent epidemics. I am raising it. The long-term effects of the virus on those who obtain it and survive are unknown. The wave of infection will overwhelm the healthcare system. And more healthcare professionals will get sick, die, or be traumatized when treating the patient’s continuous flow.

Hanage said the idea of ​​herd immunity might be something people tired of limiting coronaviruses might want to hear, but it’s “unfortunately impossible.”

“It provides the idea that we can get back to normal and says nothing about how to do the most important part of it,” protects vulnerable people.

“We need to show how we can stop the infection of our grandparents,” he said, if the spread of the virus that could kill people’s grandparents is allowed.

He also said the proposal was “incredibly casual about infecting many young people” when the study showed that it had long-term effects on young people, including a high rate of myocardial damage. I did.

“It’s shameful. It’s against all public health principles to suggest that this should just be allowed to happen,” he said.

Dr. Abral Callan, Physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the Great Barrington Declaration was “not a wise declaration” for a variety of reasons. This is not a necessary response now. “

“Heart inflammation, brain fog, lung scars, ongoing malaise. These are all symptoms found in patients of different ages, and we are still trying to understand their effects.” He said.

“Many of these effects will be seen,” he said, if hundreds of thousands or even millions of people were allowed to get sick.

He also said, “They are proposing something completely fictitious. It’s impractical and there’s no way to actually implement this.”

Discussing herd immunity ideas can be devoted to fighting the coronavirus by strengthening efforts to fight the virus through means such as testing, tracking, quarantine, masking, and eyes. Time, divert attention and take away. ” Protection, and ventilation, he also said.

“When something like the Great Barrington Declaration happens, it gets everyone’s attention for days,” he said. “Every day we lose with this virus is an exponentially worsening day due to the rapid spread of the virus.”

Dr. Ashish Jha, director of public health at Brown University, said in a tweet last week that the Great Barrington Declaration is “junk science.” And like junk food, it tastes great, but has zero nutritional value. “

The New York Times material was used in this report.

Martin Finne Cane can be reached at [email protected]..