Herd immunity

[pancakeloverrr]

I want to know what other mumsnetters think:

Are we all eventually supposed to get covid? Is that the plan? That eventually everyone must get it?

Just wondering what your opinion is regarding the pandemic.

Agree with @cathyandclare and I think that is the most sensible strategy going forward.

I think you may have misunderstood my post Alex

or overinterpreted it

Many countries could still implement it. R is already dropping in developed countries. The only thing lacking is governmental will to do so.

New Zealand went from a frankly crap test trace isolate system to an excellent one in a matter of weeks. It is not difficult for a developed country to do. Developing countries will need help. Better that than “oh well, just let them die.”

@cathyandclare . 'The R in London is low and cases are low too. This suggests that there is a degree of herd immunity in the capital, even at those relatively low antibody levels'

The r in London might be lower than in other parts of the uk because it is ahead of other areas on the curve not because of the 17% immunity rate.

I don’t disagree that would be the best staffer for every country to follow. We have shown ourselves to be massively slow of the mark and inept in that area.

Every country is following its own strategy you have New Zealand in one corner and Sweden in the other. We’re in between. Unless everyone is on the same page with test, track and isolate then it won’t be effective as a global response and therefore you keep your borders shut or only allow people from certain counties in. All which have a huge impact on the economy and tourism.....

Spain, Italy, France. I am not sure they have a good test, track and trace program up and running?

Strategy not staffer

*@Alex50

the UK did not invent herd immunity, nature did 😂 The only reason the human race has existed for millions of years from diseases is because of herd immunity.*

Do I really have to spell it out for you that I meant as a reaction on how to deal with the pandemic of SARS-COV2?

The R in London is low and cases are low too. This suggests that there is a degree of herd immunity in the capital, even at those relatively low antibody levels

Nonsense - it's a consequence of lockdown. If you lifted social distancing and cases still remained low, then you might be able to claim that herd immunity had something to do with it, but that wouldn't happen because 17% immunity is nowhere near enough.

This is a long read, but it's interactive and explains very well the issues with herd immunity and why keeping R below 0 is the best strategy.

ncase.me/covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR2U4F3XHp6zNPIr8vWtRsAkn2OnO6uUPRACuw9bms1Jk-Q2v54iWEk2AMg

Maybe. But there has been lots of discussion about the slow UK lockdown. The peak is meant to be an artificial one, because of social distancing and other measures. Why hasn't lockdown nipped infections in other areas in the bud? Why are areas like the NE that had few cases in the early days now showing more infections now?

It could be behaviour based, but are Londoners finding it much easier to follow lockdown? The population density would make it tricky in shops, parks, public transport and pavements. Or it could be a herd effect. Or it could be something else that I haven't thought about!!!

I'm arguing for keeping the R below 1 ( although below 0 would be impressive!) Just saying that some herd protection can help with that aim.

the UK did not invent herd immunity, nature did 😂 The only reason the human race has existed for millions of years from diseases is because of herd immunity

Really? so we are immune from Bubonic plague are we? Ebola? or Smallpox?

Bubonic Plague is thought to have eventually died out because the black rat, was replaced as the dominant species by the Brown rat, which didn't like living alongside humans..... and neither did we! as it was much bigger and aggressive.
Ordinary Smallpox, left unchecked will kill between 25 and 75% of those infected.
We didn't even achieve Herd Immunity in 1919 (after the 3rd wave) the virus, having burned through the population, for unknown reasons, stopped being so deadly, it affected around 20% of the population, no where nr enough for Herd immunity.

Immunity is not transferred from generation to generation either, which is a huge blow to the herd immunity theory.

Ignore that last comment, if young people were more free, infection would spread around them more and the R would go above 1 in low-risk groups. The question is, can we protect the others with shielding and effective test, track and tracing or would it be impossible?

cathyandclare From the outrage on here and in the media, shielding for the over 70s/Diabetics/those with heart issues is not possible, they want to get out and about just as much as the young do.

Realistically, we can only shield the very infirm ie those in care homes.

We need to get the R rate & infection rate down and have an effective track and trace regime.

Just to clarify.
I posted yesterday that some experts think immunity might only be six months.
Nowhere have I stated it's a definite fact. It's, as I keep saying, as yet unknown. Hence a cautious approach being sensible.

London's R rates are apparently low. A poster on a different thread explained a lower r rate in an area with more people means more cases than a higher r rate in an area with less people.

What I wonder is how many tests are currently being performed in London? There's no confirmed cases without tests - and some areas are testing more than others.

I find it very hard to believe London is out of the woods. Heathrow airport is receiving daily flights from highly infected places like Brazil. Travellers heading off from the airport on busy public transport. No checks or quarantine.

I wouldn't say Londoners are finding it easier to social distance. If anything it's harder for many given the amount of crowded high density housing with lots in small flats with no outside space. It's more likely if they're adhering to lockdown better because it's so close up home. London suffered so very badly in the first wave. Many more deaths than anywhere else in the UK. They might realise why it's so important.

Still interested in this. Want to rtft first though.

This is a really interesting thread. I've bookmarked many of the links. Thank you everybody 😊

"Do I really have to spell it out for you that I meant as a reaction on how to deal with the pandemic of SARS-COV2?"

I think it would help I you did.

Herd immunity isn't a policy. It's the desired end state. Whether this achieved vaccination, or by the wild disease process (as Mother Nature did for all diseases when they first emerged, at pretty terrible cost)

And of course we cannot be sure whether it is achievable at all, until we know more about the level of immunity

shielding for the over 70s/Diabetics/those with heart issues is not possible

That sounds like the vulnerable list, than the shield list (which features neither age categories nor diabetes, and only certain v severe cardiac issues)

"tell me what disease in history has been successfully managed via “natural herd immunity”? I’ll wait" All of them prior to the invention of vaccines etc.

And we rely on herd immunity now for many diseases.

We should have closed Youtube down for the duration but kept the public libraries open.

We need to get the R rate & infection rate down and have an effective track and trace regime.

Yes please.

tell me what disease in history has been successfully managed via “natural herd immunity”? I’ll wait All of them prior to the invention of vaccines etc.

But society isn’t prepared to accept the consequences nowadays. Thank goodness it’s considered somewhat brutal.

And we rely on herd immunity now for many diseases.

Not natural herd immunity we don’t, not for serious diseases.

"tell me what disease in history has been successfully managed via “natural herd immunity”? I’ll wait"

All of them prior to the invention of vaccines etc

That's not true at all.

I’m not arguing we should use herd immunity but of course it exists or we wouldn’t be here, yes some diseases like small pox we had to live with for thousands of years until we had a vaccine but there was immunity within the population or we wouldn’t be here. We have only had vaccines in the last couple of hundred years so yes we have to devolop immunity or we die out.

Where have people got this idea that we must have had herd immunity to historic diseases in order for mankind to have survived them? In a couple of cases, that may be true - it far more cases, we ended epidemics by stopping the spread. Like SARS - we're not immune to that, are we? Even polio - before there was a vaccine, outbreaks of polio didn't end because of herd immunity - they ended because of effective quarantining.

In the olden days, I suspect that people were not concerned with the concept of herd immunity as this only made sense in a futuristic world of as yet unknown science and vaccines.

Humans as a race have survived largely through non-pharmacological means - as is obvious as these have not been around as long as pandemics have.

Containment not cure. Is the solution for cholera clean water or medicine? Should we use non medical means of not transmitting HIV or just rely on antiviral treatments for AIDS?

Sometimes the old ways really are the best because their actual effectiveness has been tested over time.

And when you don't do the obvious and simple stuff, you are overwhelmed and have to lockdown. Because of exponential growth.

Because lockdown ended exponential growth - and let's not forget that an R0 of 1 means a flattening not a reduction - eg thousands of people consistently infected per day, hundreds dying per day. A second peak is expected. Collateral damage. Don't forget the government criteria is a peak that doesn't overwhelm the NHS - that's easy - stop all other treatment, don't admit, discharge to care homes etc.

it might look to be safe to go out but this is because one is making the fatal error of not understanding that lockdown was a determining factor of exponential growth.

It's like thinking 'this fire died down (but didn't extinguish) when we dramatically reduced oxygen so if we add more oxygen it will continue to die down in the presence of plenty of fuel'. No, common sense and logic says otherwise.