- Question
Is herd immunity the best way to beat coronavirus?
Herd immunity strategy has come under scrutiny. Herd immunity assumes a large section of the population will be infected. Rather than enforce lockdown measures, herd immunity encourages social distancing in public places. The aim is to have as many low-risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others. Therefore, the more there are, the faster we kill its exponential growth, and the easier it will be to treat the vulnerable. The WHO has criticised the approach, as have many others. Is the Swedish government correct?
Herd immunity is our best defence against the spread of coronavirus
This position holds that herd immunity is the best defence against coronavirus. It argues that policy should aim at managing the virus's spread rather than vainly trying to contain it, pointing to the way population immunity has halted the spread of viruses in the past.
Herd immunity will not work
This position holds that herd immunity will not work against coronavirus. It argues the approach is dangerous and foolhardy—reaching it would require an impermissible death toll, the disease can be caught more than once, and reinfection may prove even worse the second time.
Herd immunity is a risky bet
This position holds that pursuing herd immunity against coronavirus is a risky bet. It argues there are too many unknowns to trust such a policy — the virus could mutate, undermining acquired immunity — and that the strategy accepts that many people will die along the way.
Herd immunity is irrelevant
This position holds that treating herd immunity as a chosen strategy is a misnomer, making the debate largely beside the point. It argues that without a vaccine, pursuing natural herd immunity is a reckless gamble — and that lockdowns are themselves just a slower route to the same end.