Adopting herd immunity a dangerous idea

Re: “Herd immunity: What it means and what it takes to get there ...” Nov. 1 commentary

The opinion piece on herd immunity by Justin Fox in Sunday’s Post presented a thorough and informative examination of the many factors relevant to this controversial policy. As an addendum, one might also contemplate the consequences of adopting herd immunity as public policy prior to achieving widespread availability of a proven, safe vaccine. While I’m just a simple nuclear scientist and not an epidemiologist, I do know that adopting a national policy of herd immunity at the present time would have two highly negative effects.

First, the number of COVID- 19 cases would increase dramatically. As a test case, consider North Dakota and South Dakota, where ignoring coronavirus guidelines has been the norm and the per capita case rate is currently 5- 6 times the national average. Bottom line: more deaths and long- term respiratory illnesses.

Second, and of overriding concern, is the additional strain such a policy would impose on our already overloaded health care system. For the past eight months, those individuals in the response network from EMTs to ICU physicians have risked their lives daily to address the crisis 24/ 7. With a COVID fatality rate of nearly 1,000 per day, the emotional toll further adds to the physical stress. Burnout is an increasing reality. And other areas of health care can become secondary to the pandemic.

Herd immunity may seem to be an attractive way to “get back to normal.” But at what expense?

Vic Viola, Golden