Interview Covid experts: there is another way Three eminent epidemiologists met in Massachusetts to plan a better response to the pandemic BY Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff Dr Sunetra Gupta is a professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modelling of infectious diseases October 5, 2020 Dr Bhattacharya is a professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. October 5, 2020 Dr Kulldorff is a Professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations. October 5, 2020 October 5, 2020 Filed under: Global affairs interview Share: As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical, and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. “This is the saner approach, the more scientific approach,” the authors tell Freddie Sayers Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity. Great Barrington, Massachusetts, 4th October 2020 To sign the declaration, follow this link (will be live later today): www.GBdeclaration.org Join the discussion The authors and then signatories, do not question PCR tests, that’s why I am not signing this declaration. Here is the answer to the PCR tests concern. https://youtu.be/8bX-wFVBP94 So it doesn’t address the fact that immunity to COVID19, according to current studies, doesn’t last in the majority of people, past 6 months. This defeats the object of herd immunity. There are compelling arguments made I agree – such as the fact that younger people such as you and I should be able to carry on with the bulk of our usual activities. But to rely on herd immunity is folly because there’s no evidence yet that it is the sound course of action. i know I’m late to the game re: this discussion, but I would like to voice a concern nonetheless. While I agree with the proposal in principle, I am worried about the potential longterm, under-researched, effects of covid-19. My point of contention is this: suppose we enact the Focused Protection plan and develop herd immunity among the youth population(s) and prevent disease among those with underlying conditions (including old age). Well, what if the cost of that is longstanding deleterious effects on the youth population? … and we just won’t know what those effects are until the data comes in years later? — this seems like a potential problem for the proposal. What do you all think? Who do we believe? So many opinions being thrown out and it is confusing! I live in the twin island Trinidad and Tobago. Since March this year our nationals living outside of the country have not been allowed to return. Our paranoid leaders are so obsessed and myopic about reducing the number of Covid 19 cases that now some 10,000 jobs have been lost from our population of about 1.3 million. Many businesses have been shut down due to loss of sales/ income. Schools have been closed since March this year and we are forced to wear masks even in our cars with our family members. We are also not allowed to go to our beaches. Many have been charged TT$1000 and more for disobeying the law. I’d like to know in some detail what this means, “. . . build up immunity to the virus through natural infection . . .” Natural infection from what? Myself, age 80, always wear a mask in public, avoid crowded areas but do go to my favorite restaurant Guilty of not making all the Dr.’s visits I should have this year. Get info on Covid from practicing physicians, absolutely disregard any politician of either party, indeed any public employees, where Covid is concerned. Focused Protection This is the most promising proposal have seen. Great work!I recommend including in presentations a consideration I did not hear in the UnHerd video: intergenerational homes.Here in Flagstaff, Arizona, we are on the edge of the western part of the Navajo Nation, the people who were here before Western civilization intruded. The Nation consists largely of intergenerational homes, and the effect of CoVID-19 has been especially bad with multiple deaths in a home being common. A man who joined our department after I retired lost both parents and a sister; I do not know the ages of anybody involved.Good luck with your message! I think it is a path to a brighter future. Thank you to brave scientists coming together to speak truth for the public good in the face of such politics. It gives my heart and mind peace and you have our families full support. To get involved in the discussion and stay up to date, become a registered user. It's simple, quick and free. Sign me up
The authors and then signatories, do not question PCR tests, that’s why I am not signing this declaration.
So it doesn’t address the fact that immunity to COVID19, according to current studies, doesn’t last in the majority of people, past 6 months. This defeats the object of herd immunity. There are compelling arguments made I agree – such as the fact that younger people such as you and I should be able to carry on with the bulk of our usual activities. But to rely on herd immunity is folly because there’s no evidence yet that it is the sound course of action.
i know I’m late to the game re: this discussion, but I would like to voice a concern nonetheless. While I agree with the proposal in principle, I am worried about the potential longterm, under-researched, effects of covid-19. My point of contention is this: suppose we enact the Focused Protection plan and develop herd immunity among the youth population(s) and prevent disease among those with underlying conditions (including old age). Well, what if the cost of that is longstanding deleterious effects on the youth population? … and we just won’t know what those effects are until the data comes in years later? — this seems like a potential problem for the proposal. What do you all think?
I live in the twin island Trinidad and Tobago. Since March this year our nationals living outside of the country have not been allowed to return. Our paranoid leaders are so obsessed and myopic about reducing the number of Covid 19 cases that now some 10,000 jobs have been lost from our population of about 1.3 million. Many businesses have been shut down due to loss of sales/ income. Schools have been closed since March this year and we are forced to wear masks even in our cars with our family members. We are also not allowed to go to our beaches. Many have been charged TT$1000 and more for disobeying the law.
I’d like to know in some detail what this means, “. . . build up immunity to the virus through natural infection . . .” Natural infection from what? Myself, age 80, always wear a mask in public, avoid crowded areas but do go to my favorite restaurant Guilty of not making all the Dr.’s visits I should have this year. Get info on Covid from practicing physicians, absolutely disregard any politician of either party, indeed any public employees, where Covid is concerned.
This is the most promising proposal have seen. Great work!I recommend including in presentations a consideration I did not hear in the UnHerd video: intergenerational homes.Here in Flagstaff, Arizona, we are on the edge of the western part of the Navajo Nation, the people who were here before Western civilization intruded. The Nation consists largely of intergenerational homes, and the effect of CoVID-19 has been especially bad with multiple deaths in a home being common. A man who joined our department after I retired lost both parents and a sister; I do not know the ages of anybody involved.Good luck with your message! I think it is a path to a brighter future.
Thank you to brave scientists coming together to speak truth for the public good in the face of such politics. It gives my heart and mind peace and you have our families full support.