Skip to main content

Sweden-style herd immunity approach to Covid-19 would be a 'dangerous' error with no basis in science, 80 experts warn in scathing letter

Trying to cope with coronavirus by letting it spread to develop herd immunity would be a 'dangerous' error with no basis in science, leading experts have warned.

In a letter to the UK's top medical journal The Lancet, 80 experts on medicine and public health have called for immediate action to stop the disease in its tracks.

Politicians and scientists have for months toyed with the idea of allowing the virus to spread through the population so that people become immune to catching it a second time and it eventually runs out of fuel for outbreaks.

The policy has been used in Sweden, which hasn't had any coronavirus lockdowns during the pandemic but has suffered a high death toll as a result. 

The Great Barrington Declaration petition launched this month calling for Governments to adopt this approach and claims to have been signed by more than 30,000 medical and health professionals and 450,000 members of the public. 

But Boris Johnson has shot down the idea, this week saying that the number of deaths would be too great to bear if the controversial approach was taken.

Scientists now warn in their letter that to follow the approach suggested by the Great Barrington petition would be a 'dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence'. 

They said there is no proof people even get immune after catching the virus once, and that the process of letting it spread would cripple hospitals everywhere.

Health and care workers would face 'unacceptable' burdens and trauma in the face of a devastating and uncontrollable pandemic, they said, and it could leave many survivors with poorly-understood and long-lasting side effects known as 'long Covid'.

Some experts have called for politicians to allow the virus to spread among younger people, for whom it is not as deadly, while protecting the most vulnerable. Scientists say there is no evidence this would work and it may not even be possible (Pictured: A crowd of people in London this month)

Some experts have called for politicians to allow the virus to spread among younger people, for whom it is not as deadly, while protecting the most vulnerable. Scientists say there is no evidence this would work and it may not even be possible (Pictured: A crowds of people in London this month)

'Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population,' the letter said.

It warned that it would be 'unfeasible' to selectively isolate only the people who are most at risk of dying if they catch coronavirus.

People in the most vulnerable categories include the elderly, cancer patients, people with long-term illnesses and potentially black and ethnic minority people in the UK.

WHAT IS HERD IMMUNITY AND WILL WE GET IT FOR COVID-19? 

Herd immunity occurs when a disease runs out of room and can no longer spread because enough of the population have been exposed to it, either because they've already had it or have been vaccinated.

If nobody is immune to an illness – as was the case at the start of the pandemic – it can spread like wildfire. But if, for example, half of people have developed immunity there are only half as many people the illness can spread to.

As more and more people become immune the pathogen finds it harder and harder to spread, until its pool of victims becomes so small it can no longer spread at all.

The threshold for herd immunity is different for various illnesses, depending on how contagious they are – for measles, around 95 per cent of people must be vaccinated to it spreading. For polio, which is less contagious, the threshold is about 80-85 per cent.

But because there is no vaccine for Covid-19, it means actively hunting down herd immunity through natural exposure is controversial because it would mean tens of thousands of people would die.

Government advisors have previously said around 60 per cent of Britain would need to be infected to achieve herd immunity — around 40million people. But, in theory, it would mean around 240,000 Britons would die, given that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is estimated to kill around 0.6 per cent of everyone it infects.

And scientists still do not have any firm proof as to how long immunity actually lasts once a person has fought off Covid-19, and doctors around the world have warned of re-infections — even though the evidence suggests they are less serious.

Some research has suggested the herd immunity threshold could actually be as low as 10 per cent, if it spreads more rampantly among the most socially active. This is because they are into contact with others more regularly and are, therefore, more likely to spread the illness.

Herd immunity without a vaccine is considered a controversial route for getting out of the pandemic because it gives a message of encouraging the spread of the virus, rather than containing it.

No 10 was even forced to deny herd immunity was the strategy after Boris Johnson's chief aide Dominic Cummings reportedly confirmed the plan at a private event back in February, allegedly saying it was 'too bad' if it meant 'some pensioners die'.

And leaked emails published last month showed that both Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Chris Whitty faced backlash from academics over the controversial 'herd immunity' approach that was further discussed in March.

Meanwhile, unlike most European nations, Sweden never imposed a lockdown and kept schools for under-16s, cafes, bars, restaurants and most businesses open when the disease hit Europe in February.

Researchers have even suggested that the Scandinavian nation has since built up a degree of immunity to the virus, with one academic claiming that the virus may now have run out of steam in Sweden.

But data compiled by Our World In Data — a website that has tracked the pandemic since it began — suggests cases have began to rise again over the past few weeks. For instance, Sweden's seven-day average of daily infections stood at 560 on October 1, up from 250 at the start of September.

 

Deciding who should be protected from the virus and then isolating only them would be too complex and wouldn't work, experts say. 

Boris Johnson said this week that 'we can't let the virus rip', shooting down the idea that herd immunity could emerge as a plausible strategy.

The concept of herd immunity relies on a large proportion of people becoming immune to a virus – through vaccination or past infection – meaning it spreads much more slowly or not at all through the population. 

Scientists have suggested that between 40 and 70 per cent of people may need immunity for this to work with Covid-19. There is currently no proof that anyone gets long-term protection after having the disease once. 

In their letter the scientists, led by Dr Deepti Gurdasani from Queen Mary University in London, said: 'Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for Covid-19 is flawed...

'There is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection, and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future. 

'Such a strategy would not end the Covid-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. 

'It would also place an unacceptable burden on the economy and healthcare workers, many of whom have died from Covid-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine. 

'Additionally, we still do not understand who might suffer from long Covid. Defining who is vulnerable is complex, but even if we consider those at risk of severe illness, the proportion of vulnerable people constitute as much as 30 per cent of the population in some regions.

'Prolonged isolation of large swathes of the population is practically impossible and highly unethical.'

The paper advocates instead for governments – signatories came from the UK, US, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, France, Australia, Spain, Israel, Italy and Malaysia – to focus on stopping the coronavirus.

It concluded: 'The evidence is very clear: controlling community spread of Covid-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months. 

'We cannot afford distractions that undermine an effective response; it is essential that we act urgently based on the evidence.'

The paper echoes the comments of Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the House of Commons this week.

In a rebuttal to the Great Barrington declaration and the growing momentum behind calls to let the virus spread among young people, who currently make up the majority of cases in Britain, the PM said: 'I understand the frustration of those who have been chafing under the restrictions, the sacrifices they have made.

'But if we were to follow that course and let the virus rip, then the bleak mathematics dictate that we would suffer not only an intolerable death toll from Covid, we would put such huge strain on our NHS, with an uncontrolled second spike that our doctors and nurses would be simply unable to devote themselves to the other treatments for cancer, for heart disease and hundreds more that have already been delayed and that would be delayed again, with serious long term damage to the health of the nation.

'And I am afraid it is no answer to say that we could let the virus take hold among the young and fit while shielding the elderly and vulnerable.

'Because the virus would then spread with such velocity in the general population that there would be no way of stopping it from spreading among the elderly.

'And even if the virus is less lethal for the under 60s, there will still be many younger people for whom, alas, it remains lethal.'

The entire letter can be read online at The Lancet. 

WHO SIGNED THE LETTER? 

Kristina Alexanderson  

Christian L. Althaus (U. of Bern)

Nisreen Alwan (U. of Southampton)

Rochelle Burgess

Simon Ashworth (Imperial Coll. NHS)

Rupert Beale (Francis Crick Institute)

Laura Bear

Nahid Bhadelia (Boston University) 

Debby Bogaert (U. of Edinburgh)

Reinhard Busse

Colin J. Carlson (Georgetown U.)

Yves Charpak

Tim Colbourn

Anthony Costello

Jennifer Dowd (U. of Oxford)

John Drury (University of Sussex)

Isabella Eckerle  

Jacques Fellay

David Fisman (University of Toronto)

Karl Friston

Valentina Gall (U. of Groningen)

Lynn Goldman (G. Washington U.) 

Trisha Greenhalgh

Deepti Gurdasani (Queen Mary U.)

Adam Hamdy

William Hanage

Emma Hodcroft (University of Basel) 

David Hunter (University of Oxford)

Zoë Hyde (U. of Western Australia) 

David Ingleby (U. of Amsterdam) 

Paul Kellam (Imperial College London)

Michelle Kelly-Irving (Inserm, France) 

Kamlesh Khunti (U. of Leicester)

Ilona Kickbusch

David King (Mount Sinai)

Krutika Kuppalli (U. of South Carolina)

Alastair Leyland (U. of Glasgow)

Marc Lipsitch  

Maimuna Majumder

Jose Martin-Moreno (U. of Valencia) 

Martin McKee

Paul McLaren (U. of Manitoba)

Alan McNally (U. of Birmingham) 

Michael Mina

Julian Mamo

Susan Michie  

Melinda Mills (U. of Oxford)

Moran-Gilad (Ben Gurion University)

Stuart Neil (King’s College London)

Ali Nouri (Fed. of American Scientists)

Anna Odone (Università Vita-Salute)

Christina Pagel

Alexandra Phelan (Georgetown U.)

Deenan Pillay

Dominic Pimenta

Saskia Popescu (George Mason U.)

Viola Priesemann (Max Planck Inst.) 

Seth J. Prins (Columbia University)

Angela L. Rasmussen  

Stephen Reicher (U. of St. Andrews)

Walter Ricciardi

Ken Rice (University of Edinburgh)

Johanna Riha (Kuala Lumpur)

Harry Rutter (University of Bath)

Gabriel Scally

Carlo Signorelli (U. Vita-Salute)

Joshua Silver

Tara Smith (Kent State University) 

Devi Sridhar (U. of Edinburgh)

Anthony Staines (Dublin City  U.) 

Charles Swanton (Francis Crick)

Rochelle P. Walensky  

Kevin Watkins (Save the Children)

Clare Wenham  

Robert West

Gavin Yamey (Duke University)

Kit Yates (University of Bath)

Hisham Ziauddeen (U. of Cambridge) 

 

Popular posts from this blog

Study Abroad USA, College of Charleston, Popular Courses, Alumni

Thinking for Study Abroad USA. School of Charleston, the wonderful grounds is situated in the actual middle of a verifiable city - Charleston. Get snatched up by the wonderful and customary engineering, beautiful pathways, or look at the advanced steel and glass building which houses the School of Business. The grounds additionally gives students simple admittance to a few major tech organizations like Amazon's CreateSpace, Google, TwitPic, and so on. The school offers students nearby as well as off-grounds convenience going from completely outfitted home lobbies to memorable homes. It is prepared to offer different types of assistance and facilities like clubs, associations, sporting exercises, support administrations, etc. To put it plainly, the school grounds is rising with energy and there will never be a dull second for students at the College of Charleston. Concentrate on Abroad USA is improving and remunerating for your future. The energetic grounds likewise houses various

Best MBA Online Colleges in the USA

“Opportunities never open, instead we create them for us”. Beginning with this amazing saying, let’s unbox today’s knowledge. Love Business and marketing? Want to make a high-paid career in business administration? Well, if yes, then mate, we have got you something amazing to do!   We all imagine an effortless future with a cozy house and a laptop. Well, well! You can make this happen. Today, with this guide, we will be exploring some of the top-notch online MBA universities and institutes in the USA. Let’s get started! Why learn Online MBA from the USA? Access to More Options This online era has given a second chance to children who want to reflect on their careers while managing their hectic schedules. In this, the internet has played a very crucial in rejuvenating schools, institutes, and colleges to give the best education to students across the globe. Graduating with Less Debt Regular classes from high reputed institutes often charge heavy tuition fees. However onl

Sickening moment maskless 'Karen' COUGHS in the face of grocery store customer, then claims she doesn't have to wear a mask because she 'isn't sick'

A woman was captured on camera following a customer through a supermarket as she coughs on her after claiming she does not need a mask because she is not sick.  Video of the incident, which has garnered hundreds of thousands of views on Twitter alone, allegedly took place in a Su per Saver in Lincoln, Nebraska according to Twitter user @davenewworld_2. In it, an unidentified woman was captured dramatically coughing as she smiles saying 'Excuse me! I'm coming through' in the direction of the customer recording her. Scroll down for video An unidentified woman was captured dramatically coughing as she smiles saying 'Excuse me! I'm coming through' in the direction of a woman recording her A woman was captured on camera following a customer as she coughs on her in a supermarket without a mask on claiming she does not need one because she is not sick @chaiteabugz #karen #covid #karens #karensgonewild #karensalert #masks we were just wearing a mask at the store. ¿ o