There is still no evidence of a lasting immunity to the virus.
Researchers have come out swinging at the suggestion we can overcome this COVID-19 pandemic through herd immunity.
In a letter published in The Lancet and signed by more than 80 international researchers, it is stated that any management strategy that relies on infection-acquired immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 is fundamentally flawed.
“This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence,” said the letter’s authors, whose expertise included public health, epidemiology, medicine, paediatrics, virology, infectious disease, psychiatry, health policy, and mathematical modelling.
It is a well-established fact that, as with other seasonal coronaviruses, people can be infected with SARS-CoV-2 more than once. How often this occurs remains unknown but the fact is, it can and does happen.
“There is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection.”
Consequently control of transmission of the virus continues to rely on physical measures such as face coverings, hand hygiene and physical distancing as well as quality public health services such as rapid testing and contact tracing.
The letter authors concede that ongoing restrictions, especially in countries that are now experiencing a resurgence in new cases of COVID-19, have led to “widespread demoralisation and diminishing trust”. This, they say, has been the likely impetus for the renewed interest in herd immunity (which has not been helped by a particular president proclaiming he is now “immune” following his recent infection). However, the evidence does not support the hypothesis that we should allow community transmission of COVID-19.
Even a strategy that aims to protect the vulnerable while allowing community transmission cannot work. Letting younger people contract the virus “risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population”. Not only would it have an impact on the workforce and quite likely overwhelm health services, the fact that people can get reinfected means that we wouldn’t end the pandemic – we’d simply get recurrent epidemics.
What’s more, you can’t commit one section of the population, namely the vulnerable, to prolonged isolation. As the letter states this is both “practically impossible and highly unethical”.
“Special efforts to protect the most vulnerable are essential but must go hand-in-hand with multi-pronged population-level strategies.”
In addition, the letter directly attacks the argument that taking early action in terms of severe restrictive measures in response to outbreaks causes more problems than it solves.
“Although lockdowns have been disruptive, substantially affecting mental and physical health, and harming the economy, these effects have often been worse in countries that were not able to use the time during and after lockdown to establish effective pandemic control systems,” they said.
The letter concludes with a call to effectively keep faith. The evidence is in. Our best way to protect both our society and our economy is to control community spread of COVID-19, at least until we get effective vaccines and treatments.
“We cannot afford distractions that undermine an effective response; it is essential that we act urgently based on the evidence,” the researchers conclude.
The open letter, referred to by its authors as the John Snow Memorandum, is expected to be launched during the 16th World Congress on Public Health program 2020.
This piece was originally published at Healthed.com.au.
