I fervently believe in active academic debate of our national response to COVID-19, which should be non-confrontational, transparent, evidence-based and public.
We all share the fundamental right to be informed of the impacts, both positive and negative, as well as the evidence, both for and against, public health measures which directly impact us.
The measures put in place in response to the disease have impacted people’s lives to a degree unprecedented even in wartime and the economic, psychological and social harms of lockdowns have yet to be quantified.
An analysis of over 100 studies showed that “… many relied on false assumptions that over-estimated the benefits and under-estimated the costs of lockdown. The most recent research has shown that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of COVID-19 deaths” - D. W. Allen.
Most COVID-19 deaths have occurred in those who have already exceeded their life expectancy and most have probably died of other causes, with COVID-19 as an associated factor. The cost of prolonging one life by preventing one COVID-19 death may be as high as 400 lost jobs. The best evidence available today cannot exclude that lockdowns did not have any impact on COVID-19 mortality at all and lockdown measures may have actually increased case numbers (Bendavid et al) over simply recommending voluntary social distancing.
The WHO warns that lockdowns have major impacts on society and advises that lockdowns should only be implemented to buy time in order to build response capacity, including that of healthcare systems. As such, lockdown should not be the primary method to control COVID-19. The United Kingdom lifted most lockdown measures in mid-summer, without subsequent increases in mortality or hospitalisation rates.
UK case numbers are now rising, as expected, due to increased viral triggering as summer ends. New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern has had to admit that her strategy of national lockdown as the primary response to COVID-19 has failed. Sweden continues to have less cumulative COVID-19 deaths than the European average and specifically less than the UK, despite having instituted far less restrictive measures than most countries.
COVID-19 vaccination offers good, albeit short-term, protection against infection but does not stop transmission. Protection against severe disease, including hospitalisation and death, thankfully seems to last longer. COVID-19 mRNA and DNA vaccines are now widely recognised to have serious, but uncommon, adverse effects.
These mostly seem to be much less likely than with COVID-19 infection itself, at least with the first dose of the vaccine (Hippisley-Cox et al BMJ 2021;374:n1931). However, this favourable risk-to-benefit ratio may reverse as the risks from COVID-19 infection fall drastically with age.
In fact, both the WHO and the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Inoculation continue to advise against the routine vaccination of healthy children and young adults: “The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12- to 15-year-old children at this time.”
The institution of restrictive measures based on vaccination status thus particularly impacts children by pressuring parents to vaccinate them despite uncertainty on the benefits and harms of vaccination. Additionally, the enforced utilisation of face masks, despite low numbers of COVID-19 cases and effective social distancing in schools, seems to conflict with current WHO guidelines.
There is more value to life than simply prolonging it slightly beyond one’s life expectancy at all costs- Jean Karl Soler
WHO and UNICEF advise that the decision to use masks for children aged six to 11 should be based on the following factors: whether there is widespread transmission in the area where the child resides; the ability of the child to safely and appropriately use a mask; access to masks, as well as laundering and replacement of masks in certain settings (such as schools and childcare services); adequate adult supervision and instructions to the child on how to put on, take off and safely wear masks; potential impact of wearing a mask on learning and psychosocial development, in consultation with teachers, parents/caregivers and/or medical providers; specific settings and interactions the child has with other people who are at high risk of developing serious illness, such as the elderly and those with other underlying health conditions.
WHO and UNICEF advise that children aged 12 and over should wear a mask under the same conditions as adults, in particular when they cannot guarantee at least a one-metre distance from others and there is widespread transmission in the area.
One must not forget that systematic reviews of the effects of masks on respiratory virus transmission have failed to find significant benefits and harms are not sufficiently researched (Jefferson et al).
Numerous studies have found that COVID-19 infection, even if mild, confers robust and long-lasting immunity, including different classes of antibodies and cellular immunity which block both infection and transmission. Such immunity lasts longer than 18 months, probably lasts five years or more and may actually last as long as 12 to 18 years, as with the original SARS virus.
Besides the numerous studies of antibodies, cellular immunity and re-infections, too numerous to reference here, particular note should be given to Table 1 on page 18 of Public Health England’s Weekly national Influenza and COVID-19 surveillance report, Week 33 report (up to week 32 data), published on August 19, 2021. Over the entire COVID-19 epidemic period to that date, the number of possible reinfections with COVID-19 was less than one per cent! Virus variant analysis reduced the number of probable re-infections to just 0.03 per cent, with only 137 confirmed reinfections out of 5.2 million positive cases observed (0.003 per cent). Such is far superior to any known vaccine efficacy rate.
Given the extensive body of robust, consistent, peer-reviewed evidence indicating that natural immunity is superior to and longer-lasting than any artificially-induced immunity and given the serious doubts on the utility of vaccination and masking in healthy children, it is reasonable to question why we persist with a strategy to eliminate COVID-19 through universal vaccination and masking.
Such a strategy ignores the known protective effects of both voluntary social distancing and natural immunity.
I would argue for the urgent need of a plan to live with the disease, which is now endemic, managing risk with targeted measures to protect the elderly and most vulnerable, while avoiding the infliction of further harms on those at minimal risk from the disease.
There is more value to life than simply prolonging it slightly beyond one’s life expectancy at all costs.
Jean Karl Soler, medical doctor and researcher