Herd immunity works—if you don’t care how many people die
Category: News & Politics
Via: tessylo • 4 years ago • 36 commentsBy: BY LAURIE GARRETT AND JOHN MOORE July 27, 2020 2:00 PM EDT
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Herd immunity works—if you don’t care how many people die
AND
July 27, 2020 2:00 PM EDT
The herd immunity coronavirus strategy predictably failed in Sweden. Humans often defy the best interests of the herd, write Laurie Garrett and John Moore.
From Wall Street to Main Street, much hope in the COVID-19 crisis has been placed on “herd immunity,” the idea that a sufficient number of people will eventually develop antibodies to stop virus spread and curtail the pandemic. That thinking is behind President Donald Trump’s insisting , “The virus will disappear. It will disappear.”
The Swedish government chose to pursue herd immunity during the spring when COVID-19 overwhelmed many European nations, favoring voluntary control measures over strict lockdown procedures. This week, 21 Swedish infectious diseases experts denounced the policy, writing, “In Sweden, the strategy has led to death, grief, and suffering, and on top of that there are no indications that the Swedish economy has fared better than in many other countries. At the moment, we have set an example for the rest of the world on how not to deal with a deadly infectious disease.”
The United Kingdom also flirted with a herd immunity strategy in March, but it soon backtracked as the death toll rose and Prime Minister Boris Johnson was hospitalized with COVID-19.
In a democracy, humans have free will, including the ability to choose to do idiotic things that put themselves and others at high risk for infection . They chafe at restriction, bridle at confinement, and often defy the best interests of the herd.
A study of blood samples collected this spring in 10 U.S. cities found the highest seropositivity rate, 22.7%, was in New York City at its March/April epidemic peak. The city’s chief medical officer , Jay Varma, says, however, that this antibody rate offers no solace, since “herd immunity is a very unlikely explanation…We’re not nearly at a level where we would expect that immunity would play a major role in decreasing transmission.”
Moreover, a positive result on an antibody test does not guarantee protective immunity; the detected antibodies may be neither strong enough to counter the virus nor targeted appropriately. It seems paradoxical, but the strongest antibody responses are seen in the sickest patients, including those who die. People with asymptomatic or mild infections usually develop weak responses.
The common perception that someone who recovered quickly had strong antibodies that “beat the virus” is flawed. It’s unknown whether the weaker antibody responses are protective against reinfection, and we’re still foggy on how T cell immunity kicks in. Isolated cases are increasingly reported of individuals who survived COVID-19, tested negative for the virus, and then weeks later were reinfected and took ill. These cases are rare but may become more common.
The key issue is duration : How long does immunity to SARS-CoV-2 last? We are still very early in this pandemic. No studies have tracked immune responses in people for much longer than three months. Results are mixed. In New York City, local researchers say people seem to still be robustly immune after three months. But a London study saw immunity waning strongly over that period, and in the Chinese district of Wanzhou, 40% of asymptomatically infected people and 12.9% of COVID-19 cases rapidly became antibody-negative .
If herd immunity via infections is off the table, the world needs a vaccine. Several Operation Warp Speed (a public-private program designed to speed up COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution) vaccine candidates have elicited antibodies and T cells in human trials, but it’s too early to tell whether any will protect against infection or reduce the severity of disease. Only large-scale efficacy trials can provide those much-needed answers. However, the urgency of the pandemic and other pressures will probably mean that vaccines will be approved for mass use well before we know their duration of protection. Nobody wants to wait a full year to see if immunity is sustained for 70% of the human herd.
It is quite foreseeable that immunity to the first approved COVID-19 vaccines will diminish over time, requiring frequent booster injections.
Of course, a vaccine can only confer herd immunity if it is widely used. Opinion surveys show many American “herd” members have already decided to reject a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Polling results in May found only 49% would take it, and 31% were unsure, while 20% would refuse a vaccine under any circumstances. A July survey found similarly sobering results. A scientific task force has warned that the Operation Warp Speed vaccine effort “rests upon the compelling yet unfounded presupposition that ‘if we build it, they will come.’”
To boost public confidence, it is essential that vaccines are approved only after both efficacy and safety are rigorously proved. Any rushed political interventions and election year politics that compromise safety assessments could render mass immunization impossible by further fostering public distrust.
This killer coronavirus will not simply “disappear” as long as human behavior allows it to spread within the herd . A Wall Street miracle , where powerful, lasting immunity emerges en masse and allows the world economy to return to its 2019 ways, is delusional. Until a vaccine or multiple vaccines are developed and used on a global scale to confer herd immunity, human beings must exercise free will to protect themselves and the rest of the human herd by using masks, social distancing, and good old-fashioned common sense.
Laurie Garrett is a Pulitzer Prize–winning science writer, author of Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health and other books, and a science
Tags
Who is online
172 visitors
The Swedish government chose to pursue herd immunity during the spring when COVID-19 overwhelmed many European nations, favoring voluntary control measures over strict lockdown procedures. This week, 21 Swedish infectious diseases experts denounced the policy, writing, “In Sweden, the strategy has led to death, grief, and suffering, and on top of that there are no indications that the Swedish economy has fared better than in many other countries. At the moment, we have set an example for the rest of the world on how not to deal with a deadly infectious disease.”
Modeling of SARS-CoV-2 indicates that an infection rate of 65% to 70% is needed to protect the rest of our freewheeling human herd. Thus, two-thirds of the U.S. population must become resistant to the virus before our epidemic shifts from collective catastrophe to isolated incidents. But allowing infection of about 200 million Americans translates to more than 1 million deaths, a morally reprehensible toll. The 10% antibody-positive rate among Swedes, the 5% seen in survivors of Spain’s epidemic , and even the 45% found among London health care workers involved in COVID-19 patient care come nowhere near herd immunity levels.
This is an outdated article with outdated thinking.
New models show immunity can be achieved at 43% within communities and reductions in transmission At 20%. New York City has almost certainly achieved limited herd immunity as have other hard hit places like northern Italy, wuhan and the slums of Mumbai.
Wouldn't put to much faith in Bannon's or Putin's models.
So you are of the New York times is a front for Putin camp..
good to let everyone know that upfront.
No. A legitimate newspaper prints the story. It is the follow up that matters. Remember the WMD? Or forget that already?
Sean,
Where did you get your information from? There is nothing I can find that will agree with you.
The New York Times today:
Now some researchers are wrestling with a hopeful possibility. In interviews with The New York Times, more than a dozen scientists said that the threshold is likely to be much lower: just 50 percent, perhaps even less. If that’s true, then it may be possible to turn back the coronavirus more quickly than once thought.
Source? Citation?
Nonsense . . . .
Today's New York Times is the source. Did you miss that?
Just because you say it's from the New York Times today, doesn't mean diddly without a link/citation.
Did you miss that?
I found it and I have to say, that it says a lot of nothing. It is not written by a science journalist and he doesn't say who the scientists are, or where the studies are were done.
Read it here:
And then read this:
Why? It has nothing to do with what I wrote.
"This is an outdated article with outdated thinking."
July 27, 2020
In MAGA land three days is three millennia. The flotsam never ceases.
yes, 3 weeks is a long time in the study of this virus.
I'm using sources from today. Try and keep abreast of developments.
Meanwhile studies are showing that even people with mild symptoms are having underlying heart conditions.
Herd immunity my ass.
Imagine thinking those two things are related
They are related.
They are indeed related:
That says nothing about herd immunity. I thought that was the topic.
But by all means, explains how this complication from Covid make herd immunity impossible.
Because honestly I believe with this virus herd immunity is a myth.
People will keep getting infected and then stuck with major health problems down the line.
Maybe the fact that some people who've had covid and recovered have been re-infected. That kinda tosses immunity out the window. So you also have to question the efficacy of a vaccine.
Well if immunity doesn't exist longer than a couple months that's true. But assuming it does or at least limits the severity of future infections, I trust the data that shows the spread of the disease will be limited as local populations exceed 20-30% infection rates.
For example, NYC will continue to have cases of Covid, but it's highly unlikely it will ever be a "hot spot" again, as their simply aren't enough available hosts for the explosive growth we've seen in untouched populations..
I have to wonder how people think it would ever be limited to certain people.
It only takes one to infect a lot of others.
It means that even people who get infected and show no signs can end up with widespread damage to their organs. It is not a disease that one can just walk away from. even when it seems that you are unaffected.
Things like that worry me as I have a heart murmur. I would think the last thing I would need would be heart inflammation.
And it is not just the heart that can get damage.
We don't even know what the long term impact is going to be.
Could very well be a lot of people that would need long term healthcare.
It means that infection might be a really lousy way to achieve herd immunity. If achieving immunity via infection rather than vaccination means risking heart damage and death, even when you had mild symptoms, then it's probably not the best route to take. 78% risk of damage to the ticker in people who weren't even that sick with it are odds I don't like.
It's tiresome putting the reasons why herd immunity and CO-VID 19 will not work. That puts millions of people at risk. That makes millions of people DEAD.
Actually 'herd immunity' does have its merits. Example; it was calculated that a certain per cent of the soldiers taking part in The Normandy Invasion would be casualties. Don't know what that has to with COVID but I am sure some 'fringe occupants' will try that on for size.
Trouble with the 'herd immunity' concept is always the lack of volunteers.
meh, I guess it depends on which people...
the 'right'
people
The ultra-rich will always have the very best of care, so they can take any risks.
And nobody cares about the poor...
Modeling this is not difficult. You can do it with pencil, paper and a calculator. Easier with a spread sheet. The problem is you need the following data.
1. The present infection rate - how many have had Covid.
2. How many have died.
Number 2 is the easiest one though you have to decide if Covid was the cause of death. Someone who dies in an auto accident and happens to have Covid. Don't know. Did the illness contribute to the accident - should you count it?
Number 1 is the problem. The "cases" you see posted do not recognize those who actually contracted the disease but either had no symptoms or thought they had allergies etc. and did not bother to be tested.
We have estimates from some antibody testing - somewhere from 5 to 10 times as many people have had Covid than those who get tested and are positive. (Sweden, US CDC)
To have a better idea, we would need to do random testing for antibodies - maybe break the US into 4 or 5 regions and randomly test 2,000 in each region.
Death rate estimates from China, South Korea, and US CDC range from .004 to .007
So if present infection rates (people how have been infected in the US) are somewhere between 8% to 16% most models will show between 500,000 and 1,000,000 deaths long before you get to 70%.
Collect better data, get better models.
I love the "herd Immunity" logic. If 100% of Americans contract the virus, America won't need to indicate increasing numbers any more, except numbers of deaths. America can regain its reputation as a world leader, it can LEAD THE WORLD with the least number of new cases. LOL
Gee - I don't really understand this herd thing.
First scenario - say I'm in a big room with 99 other people. 98 people have had Covid and are recovered. Number 99, me, has never been exposed. Number 100 is infectious.
Second scenario - I'm in a big room with 99 other people. 99 people have never been exposed to the virus and are well (that includes me). Number 100 is infectious.
How exactly will herd immunity help me?