In allowing mass infection, Boris Johnson’s government is pursuing a strategy that will lead to avoidable deaths and long term illness, say this group of authors
The statement from the prime minister, Boris Johnson, on 12 July leaves little doubt that the government’s latest pandemic plan involves recklessly exposing millions of people to the acute and long term effects of mass infection. We believe this is a terrible mistake. This strategy is already putting intense pressure on struggling healthcare services and will lead to many avoidable deaths and long term illness.
The narrative of “caution, vigilance, and personal responsibility” is an abdication of the government’s fundamental duty to protect public health. “Personal responsibility” does not work in the face of an airborne, highly contagious infectious disease. Infectious diseases are a matter of collective, rather than individual, responsibility. The government’s strategy will place around 48% of the population (children included) who are not yet fully vaccinated, including the clinically vulnerable and immunosuppressed, at unacceptable risk.
More than 1000 scientists have signed a letter to the Lancet setting out why allowing mass infection this summer is a “dangerous and unethical experiment.” The government is following an apparent strategy of achieving herd immunity through mass infection, rather than the much safer (and more predictable) path of vaccination. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, called a strategy of letting infection spread through a population “moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity.” The British Medical Association, Association of Directors of Public Health, SAGE, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Royal College of Nursing, and NHS leaders have all highlighted the dangers inherent in allowing mass infection. If the government is following “data not dates,” it has not made an evidence based case for this, and the scientific consensus is firmly against its approach.
The British Medical Journal Opinion goes on: