I would firstly like to thank the 15 colleagues’ associations that responded to my recent Times of Malta interview with a detailed statement. However, I would like to state that none of the statements I made are misleading or incorrect.
In fact, I took great care to support each statement with references to studies in peer-reviewed medical journals and, especially a systematic review of non-pharmaceutical interventions for mitigating the effect of pandemic and epidemic influenza published by the World Health Organisation in 2019. This latter document influenced Sweden’s decision not to enforce lockdown measures.
I appreciate that my colleagues agree that mortality in teens and adolescents is extremely low. In fact, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in the United Kingdom has only recently changed its advice on vaccinating healthy young adults aged between 16 and 18 and remains insistent that healthy children under 16 should not be vaccinated since the risks likely outweigh the benefits.
This is also the position of the World Health Organisation, which is still holding its position that: “More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19.”
I was rather surprised by the quoting of a study reporting that 2.7 per cent of those aged between 18 and 34 died of COVID-19.
Various estimates of COVID-19 fatality rates exist. For example, the systematic review of 27 studies covering 34 geographic locations by Levin et al in the European Journal of Epidemiology found: “The estimated age-specific IFR is very low for children and younger adults (e.g. 0.002 per cent at age 10 and 0.01 per cent at age 25) but increases progressively to 0.4 per cent at age 55, 1.4 per cent at age 65, 4.6 per cent at age 75 and 15 per cent at age 85.”
As such, the reported 2.7 per cent mortality seems to approximate that expected at 70 years of age. I must reiterate that Ioannidis estimated that the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in those aged less than 70 was five per 10,000 infected persons.
I must insist that the cumulative mortality from COVID-19 in Sweden to date is well below the European average and such has been achieved largely without the imposition of restrictive measures.
The study by Chaudhry and colleagues published in The Lancet in August 2020 found that “rapid border closures, full lockdowns and widespread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people”. This was reinforced by a study by Bendavid et al, from Stanford University, published in January 2021 in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.
This analysed non-pharmaceutical interventions (lockdown measures) and their individual effects on case numbers in 10 countries, some of which imposed more restrictive lockdown measures while others did not.
In conclusion, Bendavid found that less restrictive measures, such as voluntary social distancing, reduced case numbers. However, more restrictive measures did not have any additional effect. In some cases, such as the quarantine of healthy contacts with ill family members, such measures actually increased case numbers.
None of the statements I made are misleading or incorrect- Jean Karl Soler
These studies are consistent with the conclusions of the World Health Organisation’s Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza report of 2019, which recommended against many lockdown measures even with the most severe epidemics or pandemics. It specifically precluded contact tracing, quarantine of exposed individuals, border closures and entry and exit screening at the border.
As such, my colleagues’ claim that social distancing and lockdowns “have the potential to reduce the number of new infection cases by up to 98.9 per cent” is not supported by empirical studies and also oversimplifies the argument.
Most doctors, including myself, have supported voluntary social distancing as an effective measure. It is the more restrictive measures which many are objecting to. Such measures have been suspended in the United Kingdom and COVID-19 case numbers and excess mortality have not peaked.
I appreciate that my quoting of a study which found similar nasal viral carriage in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people was accepted as correct. However, I fail to understand the significance of my colleagues’ claim of “reduced viral markers” in vaccinated people and without a reference I cannot respond. I must insist that asymptomatic patients very rarely transmit COVID-19 and that those with prior infection are extremely unlikely to contract SARS-CoV-2 in future, most probably for many years.
I appreciate that these claims were not disputed.
As such, I trust that my colleagues will consequently agree with the European Parliament’s decision that any ‘vaccine pass’ should be issued to all those immune to COVID-19, independent of their vaccination status.
I note that my claims regarding masks were not challenged. I refer readers to the Cochrane Library’s Database of Systematic Reviews and its ‘Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses (Review)’ by Jefferson et al, which found that the use of surgical or N95 masks likely made little or no difference to the spread of influenza, although studies on COVID-19 were lacking.
Other reviews, which included lower quality evidence, found some protective effects of masks but mainly in closed environments and specifically in hospitals.
I welcome an active academic debate on COVID-19 and our national response to the disease but would hope that such could be non-confrontational, open and public.