Herd immunity may only need 10-20 per cent of people to be infected

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Since mid-March there has been an assumption that herd immunity against Covid-19 would not be achieved until around 60 per cent of the population has been infected. It is a figure which gave rise to the now-famous paper by Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, which claimed that a herd immunity policy (which the government denies ever following) would result in the deaths of 250,000 people in Britain. That figure has been challenged by scientists who have questioned some of the assumptions behind it – for example, it assumed a mortality rate of 0.9 per cent which Imperial College itself has since revised downwards to 0.66 per cent, and some believe is lower still.

But today comes another challenge. A team led by Gabriela Gomes of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine argues that it is wrong to assume that herd immunity will only be achieved when 60 per cent of people have been infected. It is more likely, they argue, that the true figure lies between 10 and 20 per cent. The 60 per cent figure, they say, is based on the idea that we are all equally likely to contract the virus. In reality, there is a wide variation in an individual’s susceptibility to becoming infected. People who are frail or who have greater exposure to the virus – perhaps because they are working in an intensive care unit – are in practice far more likely to contract the disease. As the epidemic progresses the pool of easily-infected individuals dries up and the virus has to search out new victims who are less-easily infected.

Modelling by Gomes’ team aims to calculate the ‘coefficient of variation’, which quantifies the variability in individuals’ susceptibility to the virus – with zero denoting no variability at all (ie we are equally likely to be infected). If this coefficient really were zero, say the scientists, then herd immunity would only be achieved when over 60 percent of the population has been infected. If the coefficient were four, on the other hand, it would be achieved when 10 per cent of us were infected. The team then looked at real-life data to try to deduce what the coefficient of variation really is and concluded that it is in the range of just under two to just over three. That would mean herd immunity could be achieved when between 10 and 20 per cent of us have been infected.

The usual health warnings apply. Gomes’ work is theoretical modelling and, in common with a lot of material on Covid-19 that is being pre-published at the moment (including Ferguson’s paper of 16 March), it has not been peer-reviewed. But it is interesting that it gives an estimate for herd immunity of between 10 and 20 per cent, because that echoes real-life experience. The closest we have to a controlled experiment on the spread of Covid-19 was the cruise ship Diamond Princess, where the disease was able to spread uncontrolled in January, and almost all were later tested for the disease. Out of the 3,711 passengers and crew, 712 – or 19 per cent – were infected.

If herd immunity really is achieved at between 10 to 20 per cent it could mean that many parts of the world are approaching it – or are there already. A study of 1,000 residents in the North West German town of Gangelt in early April suggested that 14 per cent had already been infected(many without even knowing it). A study of 1,300 New Yorkers in late April suggested that 21 per cent have been infected.

https://app.spectator.co.uk/2020/05...er-cent-of-people-to-be-infected/content.html
 
.
Sweden tames its ‘R number’ without lockdown


by Fraser Nelson

Sweden has been the world’s Covid-19 outlier, pursuing social distancing but rejecting mandatory lockdown. Schools, bars and restaurants are open – albeit with strong voluntary social distancing compliance and streets that often look almost as empty as Britain’s. Has this been enough? Sweden’s public health agency has now published a study of its R number, a metric which the UK is using to judge the success of lockdown. The objective is to push R below one, which means the number of new cases is slowing. Last week, the UK’s R number was estimated at 0.8 (± 0.2 points), a figure described as an achievement of lockdown. But Sweden’s reading is 0.85, with a smaller error margin of ±0.02 points.

This raises an interesting question: might voluntary lockdowns work just as well? And might they keep the virus at a manageable level with lower social and economic costs?

The UK government has used modelling from Imperial College London, which makes some firm assumptions about lockdown. Its graph shows self-isolation, voluntary social distancing and even school closures making very little difference to the R number. Lockdown, by contrast, is shown to be a gamechanger with the R sinking immediately.

The UK has not been tracking ‘the R’ on a daily basis so we cannot test Imperial’s model. But we can for Sweden. Imperial used the same assumptions to publish a forecast saying Sweden’s rejection of lockdown was likely to leave the virus growing at an R rate between 3 and 4. Imperial’s assumptions envisaged Swedes having 40,000 Covid-19 deaths by 1 May and almost 100,000 by June. Even a mandatory lockdown was expected to have only limited Sweden’s Covid-19 death toll to 20,000.

The latest figure for Sweden is 2,680 deaths, with daily deaths peaking a fortnight ago. Imperial College’s modelling, the same modelling used to inform the UK response, was out by an order of magnitude. Sweden has now published its own graph, saying its R was never near the 4 that Imperial assumed and has in fact been below the safe level of 1 for the past few weeks.

As Johan Norberg has written, Imperial’s model ‘could only handle two scenarios: an enforced national lockdown or zero change in behaviour. It had no way of computing Swedes who decided to socially distance voluntarily. But we did.’ Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist, has seen his trust ratings soar: some Swedes are even having his face tattooed on their arm.

At present, Britain is considering the South Korean model: tech, surveillance, track and trace. But given that Sweden achieved what Imperial College had thought was undoable without the surveillance or the tech, its lessons are also worthy of consideration. Swedes have been asked to use what their PM calls ‘Folkvett’ – people’s wit, or common sense. As Boris Johnson considers his options, he should also ask whether a folkvett option – described in a recent Spectator leading article as a ‘trust the public’ approach – might work for Britain.

https://app.spectator.co.uk/2020/05...es-its-r-number-without-lockdown/content.html
 
America is probably already at about 10-20% immunity, given the evidence of antibody tests, at least in hot spots.
 
"Sweden has left its schools, gyms, cafes, bars and restaurants open throughout the spread of the pandemic. Instead, the government has urged citizens to act responsibly and follow social distancing guidelines."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ersial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective

Maybe the Socialists are onto something?

Holy crap Jacqui, you've definitely changed your tune then. Don't make me go back and post a few of your hysterical musings from two.months back.
 
Holy crap Jacqui, you've definitely changed your tune then. Don't make me go back and post a few of your hysterical musings from two.months back.

Why did Trump fuck everything up? That's my question. (Hey, have you tried the Bleach Cocktail? How'd that work out?)
 
No one in their right mind would go with this process if you called it what it actually is. Introducing the sacrificial lamb approach. People will stick with social distancing, thank you. Heck, it's an introvert's dream for some
 
Trump is a Populist. He appears only to support the lockdown because he feels politically coerced into it.

Trump does what he wants to do, not what others want him to do.....you should have been able to figure this out long ago.

You must be spectacularly stupid!
 
No one in their right mind would go with this process if you called it what it actually is. Introducing the sacrificial lamb approach. People will stick with social distancing, thank you. Heck, it's an introvert's dream for some

Speak for yourself, just stay in your mum's basement and eat yourself to death!
 
As the epidemic progresses the pool of easily-infected individuals dries up and the virus has to search out new victims who are less-easily infected.[from OP link]
__________

That has Bingo written all over it.

Delete the assumption that everyone who is exposed to COVID gets COVID. Couple it with the apparent fact that a significant number of infections result in mild and even no discernible symptoms.

Yes, herd immunity could easily lurk in the 20-30% range.
 
Back
Top