Herd Immunity, really?

[Newleafinspring]

I am not sure if PM has actually read through the report that the his advisers gave him before he used the term Herd Immunity. To enable the herd immunity, 60-80% people need to catch the virus, use 2% as the death rate, That's 1-2 million people.

The more horrible point is, this is a new virus, nobody knows if we get immunity from the virus after we catch it, if we have it, how long this immunity will last.

The plan isn’t herd immunity now though apparently

I'm not sure your maths is entirely correct. 2% of 80% of 66 million is just over one million which really is nowhere near 2 million. Given the expected death rate is likely to settle at around 1% then you can then look at 500,000 deaths. Still a lot don't get me wrong but not 2 million.
Scaremongering like this is very unhelpful.

I don't think that's the plan.
The plan is to try to delay the peak. Both to try to ease stress on the NHS (probably impossible) and to allow breathing space for treatments and vaccines. There are some clinical trials in stage 3 (wide spread testing) that are apparently looking hopeful.

The maths here is also skewed- you need to look at the adult population, for a start, because, so far, nobody under 19 has died.
Then you would need to know the exact reasons why, for instance, in China, men are more likely to die than women are, and if that would apply here, and apply that to your results.
Which is why only experts should be making any kind of shot at a prediction of anything about this, really.

If the exact figure need to be used , it is not 1-2 million, it is 1.3 million.

Italy's death rate is much higher, I am not sure we can be confident about a 1%. I had hoped that we would be like Germany, but with 1140 case and 21 death already, it's unlikely now.

What I mean is PM shouldn't use that terminology without understand the actual meaning behind it. It has caused panic already. Lots of people include me feel that the government is going to let most people catch it. And that's why UK didn't do much to contain it.

The other point I want to say is about the uncertainty of the immunity, since it is a new virus. More people catch it now may not mean less people catch it in the coming winter. Why not let less people catch it now, then wait for the scientists to learn more about the virus, so we can be more prepared for the winter?

I am not saying to go to a total lock down, but I do feel we have always been one step slower than we should be. When the news of Italy come out at the end of half term,lots of actions can be taken, like asking all people just come back from Italy to stay at home for a week, Like asking schools to cancel school trips abroad, like asking people with fever and coughs to stay at home (do it earlier not now), like encouraging people to work from home if possible.

Well , I don't think the death rate should only think about adult population. As it has already take into account of that. From WHO's report from China, the death rate for over 80 is around 18%( not 100% correct, as I don't want to go back to read the report again to check it.), for under 20 is 0%, then raise gradually according to ages. I used 2%, as it is not clear at the moment. Some say it is much higher.Some say it is much lower.

Anyway,I just want to make it clear, don't use this herd immunity terminology, it can't be achieved.

My point was you need to deduct the under 20 population from the total population as there are no recorded fatalities. Therefore, peoples %'s are wrong if they use the blanket population of the UK to draw any conclusions.

Anyway, I'm hiding this whole topic now. The amount of misinformation and panic spreading is horrible.

BeuatifulHorrorStory - it's already been pointed out that that the 2% is based on the whole population. If you took out the under-20s, you'd be looking at a much higher figure than 2%.

And if you look at Italy, the figure is about 5%.

We have no idea what the figure might be for the UK.

I certainly don't want to scare people, my point is PM shouldn't use this herd immunity word and shouldn't even think about it, As it is not achievable and lots of people will die if we go down this road.

For the death rate, there might be another more optimistic one, is 0.9%. Which is from Korea. Since Korea has done a really massive testing, anyone want to test can be test, they also traced and tested lots of people. So, let's hope this one is a more realistic one.

Calling 1.3 million 1-2 million IS scaremongering.

The trouble is we don't know the death rate, I am happy to use 2%, or even 0.9% to make the death figure low. But you see Italy's figure of 5% or up, how many people that is ?

Every person count, I don't believe BJ will keep the same policy, once the death toll going up, 1000 people die, then10,000 people die, can he insist the current policy? But the herd immunity will require far more death to achieve that, And for a new virus, it is a big risk that we may not get the herd immunity after big sacrifice.

What I don't want is a Government that does knee jerk reactions, nor a Government that feels it has to endlessly respond to Social Media.
I want a Government led by the Science. At the moment we still just about have that.
The easiest and worst thing is for them to start doing things either because everyone else is or to give the impression of being busy.

Yesterday afternoon, PM has announced more actions, like encouraging working at home etc, to further limit the spreading of the virus.

I have read the BBC news that explained the reason of changing course. Using imperial college's model, for UK's mitigation plan, the death toll is estimated to be a quarter of million death by August 20. That's only by August, I don't know how many will be by Dec 20.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51915302

That's what I mean, we can't take such a big risk for a new virus.

The problem is that it's already far too widespread for there to actually be any real alternative to herd immunity at some end point - not as a specific goal but as how it has to wind up. Either via naturally developed immunity (which is likely) or vaccine.

Social distancing reduces spread and speed of spread but it doesn't eliminate it unless it is incredibly drastic and done at a very low level of infections. As long as it continues to circulate then even if you slow the speed your end point for control is still herd immunity.

However, I sort of see what scientist think behind the strategy now. They think the virus can't be contained, so instead of using strict measure to totally control the virus then risk it come back after measure lift up, they are trying to let some people catch it and gain the immunity, and also control the whole situation within NHS's capacity.

Let's hope our government can get the timing perfect. At the moment, I am happy for the current measures, only wish is to allow parents to withdraw children from school voluntarily.

To gain the herd immunity naturally require too big sacrifice, I think the only way is to try to delay and delay, then wait for the vaccine. I heard American and also UK has started to trial the vaccine on people now. I know it will need more time, but let us all reduce our activities, wait for that to happen.

That's basically it. If we had basically slammed shut the borders and quarantined all new arrivals the moment this thing surfaced then they might have contained it but that was never going to happen, especially as new conditions do surface sometimes and mostly they don't turn in to...this.

Italy, Spain etc are taking more drastic measures to slow the spread but realistically I don't think any of them are actually expecting to stop it. They will all be relying on people not getting it twice too, I bet none of their projections are based on it going round and round reinfecting people endlessly!