The Concept of Coronavirus Herd Immunity Is Deadly and Dangerous

We’re eight months into the COVID-19 pandemic. In the United States, cases have risen to record levels and officially hit over 100,000 confirmed coronavirus cases on November 4. More than 230,000 Americans are confirmed to have died from COVID-19 to date, with thousands of additional deaths attributable to the virus but not counted in the official statistics. Even in the face of these numbers, we’re still lacking strong federal leadership and a unified national response plan to the pandemic.

Recently, several scientists and politicians have suggested the harmful and controversial idea that perhaps it might be better to aim for “herd immunity.” In my view (and that of many other epidemiologists), this would essentially mean letting the virus burn through less vulnerable segments of the population rather than trying to prevent widespread infection via interventions including mask use and social distancing. One group of scientists in particular outlined this strategy in October, referring to it as “focused protection” in a statement called the Great Barrington Declaration. As they describe it, this approach would reduce direct harm from the virus and also inadvertent “social harm” from social distancing and lockdowns that have led to closing businesses and schools. One of their claims, which has received fervent backlash from public health experts at large, is that “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.” A Trump administration pandemic adviser, neuroradiologist Scott Atlas, M.D., who doesn’t have a background or specialty in infectious disease, has also embraced this strategy.

There is nothing that most of us would like more than having some semblance of normality. So why have most scientists in the field dismissed this idea of coronavirus “herd immunity” as inadequate for containing the virus and dangerous to us all? I spoke with four scientists for their thoughts.

First: What exactly does herd immunity mean?

“Viruses require a host to replicate,” Columbia University virologist Angela Rasmussen, Ph.D., tells SELF. “Herd immunity is when enough people in a population are immune to a given virus that the virus can’t spread any more within that population because it can’t find a susceptible host.” Deepti Gurdasani, MBBS, M.D., MPhil, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at Queen Mary University in London, notes that herd immunity additionally protects those who are not immune, like babies who can’t receive certain vaccinations yet or the minority of people who can’t receive certain vaccinations due to medical issues like a compromised immune system. “The likelihood of them coming into contact with an infected person becomes much lower,” Dr. Gurdasani explains.