91ɫƬ

Let the coronavirus spread among young people? It’s not a good idea

As a rise in cases of covid-19 is met with anti-lockdown protests, a small minority are arguing that we should let the virus rip through the young and healthy
People partying
People partying in London on 12 September
Dominic Lipinski/PA Wire/PA Images

Coronavirus cases are rising again across the UK. Without urgent action, they , health officials have warned. Many scientists are now calling for further measures, such as a short-term national lockdown to limit the virus’s spread. But others point out that restrictions cause their own harms, including impacts on other health services, economic hardship and a significant toll on mental health.

Thousands of people attended a London protest last weekend against lockdown and related measures. Similar protests have taken place around the UK and the world. Meanwhile, a group of scientists have signed an essentially arguing that the virus should be left to let rip through young and healthy populations.

The open letter, by Sunetra Gupta at the University of Oxford and 31 of her colleagues, argues that lockdown and other restrictions have had a devastating impact on the wider delivery of healthcare. Cancer Research UK estimates that between April and August, for example.

However, others argue that the overwhelming of health services that occurred in the UK in April wasn’t solely because of the coronavirus epidemic, but was also due to years of underfunding of the National 91ɫƬ Service, which is often stretched beyond capacity during winter.

The authors of the letter rightly point out that the pandemic has significantly worsened mental health, although anxiety and depression appeared to be rising before lockdowns came into effect. But their further points have come under fire from other scientists.

Gupta and her co-authors argue that young people should be given age‑specific advice on their individual level of risk because they are much less likely to die from covid‑19. Older and vulnerable people should be shielded, while young and healthy people continue to live much as they used to. “The main concern is the destructive effect of lockdown and restrictions,” says Gupta.

Although the letter doesn’t mention the term “herd immunity”, this is what the writers consider the way forward, says Gupta. Allowing the virus to spread through a low-risk group is the quickest way to develop immunity in the population at large and will eventually provide protection for older and more vulnerable people, she says. Without restrictions, this could be achieved in around three months, says Gupta. “I’ve been arguing that we build up immunity in people who aren’t at risk.”

Most scientists strongly disagree with this approach, though, arguing that it would still lead to a large number of deaths as well as putting more individuals at risk of “long covid”, in which people continue to experience ill effects long after the virus has left their system. “There’s a huge amount of evidence this is not going to work,” says Stephen Griffin at the University of Leeds, UK. For a start, most scientists believe that herd immunity is far from having been reached even in regions hard hit by the virus.

While the threshold for herd immunity is debated, estimates suggest that about 60 to 70 per cent of people would need to be immune to the coronavirus to stop its spread. But studies suggest that only 10 to 20 per cent of people in London and Madrid, for example, have antibodies to it.

Gupta and others argue that this might already be enough for herd immunity, but they represent a minority among scientists. They also point out that, even without antibodies from being exposed to the coronavirus, some individuals will have immune responses that protect them from it. But it is unclear how many will have such responses and how effective they might be. “We don’t even know if herd immunity is possible,” says Christina Pagel at University College London.

The ethics and practicalities of shielding a significant chunk of the population are also a concern. “Those people need to be cared for, have families and are working,” says Griffin. “It’s not feasible.”

So how do we curb a second spike in infections? Sticking with measures like social distancing, hand washing, mask wearing and avoiding indoor and crowded places can help. Controlling the spread of the virus doesn’t have to involve lockdowns, says Pagel. “It’s about suppression through test and trace,” she says. “Countries that do that can open everything.”

Sign up to our free 91ɫƬ Check newsletter for a round-up of all the health and fitness news you need to know, every Saturday

Topics: coronavirus / covid-19