Article content

The idea of confronting the COVID-19 pandemic through a strategy of “herd immunity” instead of self-isolation and containment — exposing the population to COVID-19, knowing that most won’t die — seems to have a certain brutal logic. But only until you think about it. Then you see why it could never work in practice. Indeed, it would make things worse.

The idea, in effect, is to bank on the fact that COVID-19 doesn’t kill most people it infects. The death rate is still a matter of some debate, because there are undoubtedly instances of people being infected but not recorded as official cases. But it seems to be in the range of one per cent to perhaps as high as four per cent, with some countries having figures well outside those ranges (high and low). (At time of writing, the Canadian fatality rate was just below one per cent of confirmed infections.) The deaths, however, are not evenly distributed among the population. The elderly and those with underlying health conditions are, by far, the most likely to die if infected with COVID-19.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or Matt Gurney: Why the COVID-19 herd immunity theory is dangerously flawed Back to video

It could never work in practice. Indeed, it would make things worse

And that’s the core of the herd immunity argument: why not isolate the vulnerable, but allow the rest of us — healthy 30-somethings, such as myself — to get back to work? The 20-, 30- and 40-year-olds will survive, and become immune, and since we’re the heart of the workforce, the economic damage of this crisis would be greatly reduced. Once enough of us are immune, the virus will be vanquished. Right?