4,000 scientists have signed an anti-lockdown petition that wants those who are less vulnerable to coronavirus to ‘resume life as normal’. 

The petition now has over 40,000 signatures, and it calls for a herd immunity approach to the pandemic while protecting the most vulnerable populations.

Among experts from around the world, academics from the universities of Oxford, Nottingham, Edinburgh, Exeter, Cambridge, Sussex, York, St George’s University of London, Strathclyde, Leicester, Queen Mary University of London and the University of East Anglia have signed the declaration.

Sir Simon Stevens, leader of the NHS in England, said that asking all over-65s to slow shield to help slow the transmission of the second wave is ‘aged-based apartheid’.

The declaration states: “As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing Covid-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

“Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.

“The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden.

“Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

“Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

“We know that vulnerability to death from Covid-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, Covid-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

“As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimise mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

“The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.

“We call this Focused Protection.”

It continues: “Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal.

“Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practised by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold.

“Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed.

“Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open.

“Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”

However, some scientists disagree with the proposals. Honorary senior lecturer in virology at the University of Kent, Professor Rossman, said: “Unfortunately, this declaration ignores three critical aspects that could result in significant impacts to health and lives.

“First, we still do not know if herd immunity is possible to achieve. Herd immunity relies on lasting immunological protection from coronavirus re-infection; however, we have heard many recent cases of re-infection occurring and some research suggests protective antibody responses may decay rapidly.

“Second, the declaration focuses only on the risk of death from Covid-19 but ignores the growing awareness of long Covid, that many healthy young adults with mild infections are experiencing protracted symptoms and long-term disability.

“Third, countries that have forgone lockdown restrictions in favour of personal responsibility and focused protection of the elderly, such as Sweden, were not able to successfully protect the vulnerable population.”

Director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute and University of Oxford Prof James Naismith explained why he will not be signing the declaration: “The main signatories include many accomplished scientists and I read it with interest. I will not be signing it, however.

“The declaration risks the same error we have seen with the UK’s track trace and isolate scheme – one can promise a scheme that is very easy to describe but is hard to deliver.”

He added that it omits some ‘critical scientific information’.