„Any pandemic management strategy that relies on immunity against natural infection in the case of Covid-19 is flawed.“ This is the assertion of the authors of the John Snow memorandum. They base this strong statement on an editorial published in „Nature“ and two scientific articles by Chen, Tong, Li et al. and Parry, which describe how „uncontrolled transmission among younger people carries the risk of significant morbidity,“ and that the infection would lead to „persistent illness, even in young, previously healthy people“ (1). Furthermore, it is „unclear how long protective immunity lasts“ (2). Likewise, SARS-CoV-2, like other seasonal coronaviruses, is „capable of reinfecting people who have already had the disease, but the frequency of reinfection is unknown“ (3).
In conclusion, the John Snow authors warn that prolonged isolation of large segments of the population is practically impossible and highly unethical. Empirical findings from many countries also show "that it is not feasible to limit uncontrolled outbreaks to specific parts of society." According to the authors, such an approach also carries the risk of further exacerbating the socioeconomic inequalities and structural discrimination already exposed by the pandemic. Special efforts to protect the most vulnerable are essential, but must be accompanied by "multi-pronged strategies at the population level.".

Statement from the Society for Virology (GfV)

A recent statement by the Society for Virology (GfV) responds specifically to this statement, advising "a scientifically sound approach to combating the Covid-19 pandemic." The signatories note "with concern that voices are once again growing louder advocating for the natural infection of large segments of the population as a strategy for pandemic control, with the goal of achieving herd immunity." The GfV refers to the "Great Barrington Declaration" (4), which calls for the immediate lifting of all restrictions on public and private life, including all social distancing rules and mask mandates. To mitigate morbidity and mortality in vulnerable groups (the elderly, those with pre-existing conditions), the authors of the
The declaration called for special protective measures for these individuals, going, according to the GfV, "all the way to quasi-isolation" ("Retired people living at home should have food and other essential items delivered to their homes").
The board members of the GfV (Society for Public Health) and its co-signatories "decisively reject this strategy," although they fully acknowledge the enormous burden placed on the population by drastic containment measures. Nevertheless, the GfV authors are convinced that the damage that threatens, both directly and indirectly, in the event of uncontrolled spread of the virus would "far exceed the burdens and could lead to a humanitarian and economic catastrophe." Therefore, they strongly advise against pursuing the strategy of uncontrolled spread of the virus propagated in the "Great Barrington Declaration." Uncontrolled spread of the virus would lead to an escalating increase in the death toll, since even with strict isolation of retirees, there are other risk groups that are far too numerous, too heterogeneous, and in some cases, too unidentified to be actively shielded.
Furthermore, according to the GfV (Society for Immunization), it is not yet reliably known how long immunity acquired through infection lasts. It is becoming increasingly clear that infections with few symptoms, which are prevalent among younger people, do not confer stable immunity. The GfV board therefore expressly supports the position of the signatories of the "John Snow Memorandum" and considers the pursuit of herd immunity without vaccination to be "unethical as well as medically, socially, and thus also economically highly risky.".

Statement by the thesis paper author group Schrappe et al.

„"Ultimately, the only conclusion is that Germany is applying a concept that, paradoxically, has developed into precisely the concept that should have been avoided—namely, the concept of herd immunity—by limiting itself to general preventive measures, including the threat of a lockdown, and by largely foregoing specific preventive approaches." This is what the position paper authors Schrappe et al. write in an "urgent ad-hoc statement" (5), which refers primarily to the results of the conference between the Chancellor and the state premiers on October 14, 2020. Their concern: The concept of herd immunity is "a concept that merely accompanies the spread of the epidemic without prioritizing the urgently needed protection of vulnerable population groups." The authors have always criticized such an approach, and such an approach should continue to be sharply criticized in the future.
However, the minutes of the conference between the Federal Chancellor and the Minister-Presidents of 14 October 2020 also prompt the group of authors to point out further „worrying negative developments“ that would affect all three areas on which the group of authors has previously commented in its position papers: epidemiology, prevention concept and socio-political implications.
The previous position papers published in "Monitor Versorgungsforschung" have rigorously analyzed and demonstrated that
• the SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19 epidemic is spread by asymptomatic carriers and cannot be captured by linear concepts,
• the epidemic cannot be eradicated for this reason, but spreads homogeneously in the population in the absence of vaccination and therapy (sporadic spread), with additional outbreaks occurring,
• Frequency data based on event-related samples should be used with extreme caution, and the primary task must be to obtain reliable, representative data through cohort studies and to use clinical data for assessment.,
• Test procedures must be validated, especially with regard to infectivity,
• While general prevention measures and contact tracing play an important role, ultimately the success of prevention can only be achieved through target group-oriented measures that primarily aim to protect vulnerable groups of people (numerous concrete examples have been suggested, more will follow in the next position paper (from p. 69 ff.),
• the preventive measures must not come at the expense of humanity and dignity of the person,
• the principles of risk communication must be observed,
• Restrictions on fundamental rights must be justified at all times in terms of their proportionality, and
• A mixing of health protection and interventions that could give the appearance of authoritarian action (e.g., location tracking via a Corona app, intrusion into the private sphere to control "visiting rules") is under no circumstances permissible.