Time - USA (2020-11-02)

Time November 2/November 9, 2020

This new strategy is also at the heart of a
controversial new statement, titled the Great
Barrington Declaration, written by three aca-
demics with views far outside the scientific
mainstream—Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kull-
dorff and Sunetra Gupta.
They believe that if enough people get
infected, survive and develop anti bodies
(natural protections from reinfection), then
the virus will no longer be able to spread
through populations; society will effec-
tively have developed a natural “herd im-
munity” from SARS-CoV-2. They want most
Americans to stop worrying about getting
infected and just go back to normal life right
away—back into offices, schools, colleges
and universities, sports stadiums, concert
halls and restaurants— while attempting to
protect the most vulnerable
from infection.
From a public-health and
ethical viewpoint, this policy
is deeply troubling.
For a start, no pandemic
has ever been controlled by
deliberately letting the in-
fection spread unchecked in
the hope that people become
immune.
Scientists estimate that a
large share of the population,
50% to 80%, would need to
be immune to reach herd im-
munity against COVID-19.
Let’s be clear: the only way to
achieve this without a huge
costs in terms of illness and
deaths would be through vac-
cination with safe, effective
COVID-19 vaccines. It cannot be reached by
natural infection and recovery. Too many peo-
ple would die or become disabled; hospitals
would be overwhelmed.
A recent study from Stanford University
suggests that only about 9% of the U.S. popu-
lation has antibodies to the new coronavirus.
Around 156 million more Americans would
need to get infected to reach the 50% thresh-
old for herd immunity from natural infection.
You’ve seen the devastation caused by some
8 million cases, so just imagine the impact of
an additional 156 million cases.

The auThors of the Great Barrington Decla-
ration argue that most of us wouldn’t need to
worry about this kind of wildly uncontrolled
transmission. This is a dangerous assertion.
Letting the virus run rampant in younger

people would cause long-term illness in an es-

timated 10% of those infected and would in-

evitably lead to infections and deaths in older

people. This strategy would lead to a massive

death toll— estimates suggest the result could

be somewhere between 1 million and 2.5 mil-

lion dead Americans. With the health system

pushed to a breaking point by the virus, ser-

vices for diseases like cancer, diabetes, ad-

diction treatment and heart disease would be

disrupted, which could lead to an increase in

deaths from these other conditions.

Allowing millions to get COVID-19 would

also be devastating for the U.S. economy. An

economy cannot be healthy if its population

is sick. Assuming that the virus only affects

us until the fall of 2021, the COVID-19 cri-

sis will cost the U.S. economy an estimated

$16 trillion; a herd-immunity

strategy would likely push this

much higher.

What about the idea of

shielding the vulnerable? This

would be both impossible and

inhumane. Supporters of a

shielding approach don’t spec-

ify exactly who they mean by

“the vulnerable.” Let’s assume

we’re defining “vulnerable”

as those either at higher risk

of infection or at higher risk of

severe symptoms and death if

infected. The U.S. Centers for

Disease Control and Preven-

tion estimates that over 40% of

Americans are at increased risk

of infection because of pre-

existing medical conditions, so

all of these people would have

to be shielded. In addition, you’d have to iso-

late many people of color, many people who

are disabled and many people who are elderly.

What kind of society would contemplate

locking away so many vulnerable people for

months or years on end?

Many countries in East Asia and the Pacific

have been able to return to near normal living

by suppressing the virus through testing, iso-

lating the infected, quarantining the exposed,

wearing face masks and avoiding crowds. In

contrast, here in the U.S., the Trump Admin-

istration’s embrace of herd immunity through

natural infection shows that it has admitted

defeat rather than taking the necessary steps

to protect Americans.

Yamey is a physician and professor of public

health at Duke University

SHORT

READS

▶ Highlights

from stories on

time.com/ideas

Lost support

President Trump’s

popularity with the

active-duty military has

fallen dramatically over

the past four years,

writes TIME contributor

retired admiral James

Stavridis. Among

the reasons: “the

COVID-19 crisis and

his mishandling of

the virus, which my

experience tells me

comes across to the

military as a refusal to

take responsibility at

the command level.”

Torn apart

The political violence in

America threatens to

destabilize the nation,

warns David French,

TIME contributor and

author of Divided

We Fall. “Each new

shooting and each

new terror plot tears

at our social fabric,”

he writes. “It is time

to bring peace to

our streets.”

Family ties

Susan Golombok,

author of We Are

Family, has been

studying different

family structures

for decades. “What

matters most for

children is not the

makeup of a family,”

she explains. “What

matters most

is the quality of

relationships within

it, the support of their

wider community

and the attitudes of

the society in which

they live.”

TheView Opener

40%

Percentage of Americans who

have pre-existing medical

conditions that could make

them more vulnerable

2 .7 %

The U.S.’s observed case

fatality rate as of Oct. 19

9%

Percentage of Americans

with antibodies, a Stanford

University study estimates

$16 trillion

Estimated cost to the U.S.

economy of COVID-19

20