Stephen Griffin

The problem with the Great Barrington Declaration

(Photo by OLI SCARFF/AFP via Getty Images)

With England returning to a full national lockdown, calls for a different response — a so-called ‘segmentation strategy’ — have also reappeared. The idea behind such an approach is that a ‘vulnerable’ section of the population is effectively sealed off from the rest of society. Meanwhile, SARS-CoV2 is allowed to spread among the remaining population, generating herd immunity which will eventually protect the entire population.

This is the core principle of the Great Barrington Declaration, which has attracted a large amount of media attention since its inception a few weeks ago. This approach has had considerable appeal to those seeking to minimise the impact of the pandemic for a variety of reasons, be they the wider health implications of restrictions, effects on education, the economy or the like. The problem with such a conclusion is that — while those are clearly laudable aims — each would suffer should we lose control of the virus. Ultimately, the concept of segmentation and herd immunity via natural infection is flawed in several ways and is not supported by current scientific understanding.

One major problem is that identifying those in the vulnerable cohort is a logistical non-starter due to the number of underlying factors that can contribute to severe disease.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in