Virologist Christian Drosten considers targeted infection of young people to be ethically unjustifiable. Picture: AP / Michael Sohn
–
Coronavirus: Virologist explains whether targeted young people should be infected
The corona virus brings with it many questions, such as a vaccine, medication or the danger that is running out. Immunity also plays an important role. Of particular interest: Are people immune who have already recovered from the virus?
Because in itself it is like this: if we become infected with a pathogen and our body manages to fight it, we are subsequently immune to it. This is also known as immunological memory. For example, vaccinations work according to this principle.
The crucial question is whether this also happens after a corona infection. Unfortunately, the level of research is sobering. So far, there is no proof of immunity to Sars-Cov2 – Except in a study on rhesus monkeys, which showed no symptoms of disease after a second infection.
At least it is positive that there is also no evidence to the contrary. So why should the immune system react differently with coronavirus than usual?
Targeting young people to build up immune protection
Some doctors asked themselves this question – and then asked the virologist Christian Drosten whether it would not make sense to infect young people in a controlled manner. Would they be immune afterwards? Theoretically. According to the doctors, the advantage would be that this would also protect skilled workers from long downtimes and, in addition, reduce the protective measures themselves. Also theoretically.
Drosten himself is critical of these theories. “The fact is that young people are not free of risk themselves,” he says in the NDR podcast “Coronavirus Update”. Accordingly, a “controlled infection” is ethically unacceptable.
Accordingly, one cannot simply infect individual population groups in return. “Especially not without asking them,” he adds. However, it is unlikely that this will happen. There are a few laws in the way here. Of course, there are other arguments against the procedure, as Drosten shows:
People have to be protected
And then the result would be the risk of a further uncontrollable spread – and a health system wheezing under the workload. Drosten says it is more important to protect older people and younger risk patients, to infect as young people.
At the same time, science must consider that other measures will be shut down over time to boost economic and social life again.
(tkr)
