Using herd immunity to fight COVID-19?

Original post by PQ

Given that there’s a lot of cases of people being reinfected after recovering I don’t understand why they believe that recovery from the virus offers any immunity.

At this point the research believes the most likely reason for these is an issue with the testing producing false negatives.

Reply 4

Original post by TheStupidMoon

Herd immunity like we had with people with measles before vaccines were put on everyone?

Herd immunity is what we get BECAUSE we use vaccines. If a sufficient % of the population is resistant to the virus it cannot take hold.

Reply 5

TheStupidMoon

13

Original post by 2500_2

Herd immunity is what we get BECAUSE we use vaccines. If a sufficient % of the population is resistant to the virus it cannot take hold.

When did we get vaccines for this covid virus?

Reply 6

Original post by TheStupidMoon

When did we get vaccines for this covid virus?

We don't yet. That's why this is a risky strategy - it relies on a large proportion of the population getting it mildly (it's much less deadly than measles so it's a better position than we were in pre-measles vaccination) and recovering.

Reply 7

TheStupidMoon

13

Original post by 2500_2

We don't yet. That's why this is a risky strategy - it relies on a large proportion of the population getting it mildly (it's much less deadly than measles so it's a better position than we were in pre-measles vaccination) and recovering.

but you said measles were due to the vaccine but that isn't the case with real herd immunity plus this virus has people claiming it would mutate anyway.

Reply 8

Napp

22

I'm just imagining 'covid-19 parties' now :lol:

Doesnt quite have the same ring as chicken pox parties though..

Reply 9

username1799249

19

Original post by 2500_2

We don't yet. That's why this is a risky strategy - it relies on a large proportion of the population getting it mildly (it's much less deadly than measles so it's a better position than we were in pre-measles vaccination) and recovering.

Risky yes. But totally inevitable. We can stat indoors for a month but when we come out the virus will still be out there waiting to start infecting us again. We just need to accept that one way or other most of us are going to get it.

The question for leaders is how to make the inevitable happen in the most managed way.

Reply 10

Wired_1800

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

Original post by san_cisco

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/herd-immunity-uk-coronavirus-robert-peston

So this particular article explores the possibility of the UK government using herd immunity to contain the outbreak.

I'm honestly not sure whether this would be necessary or even fair, particularly since China has shown that containment is possible.

Apparently:

''Roughly-speaking – given what we know about the current infection rate of Covid-19 – the disease would need to infect approximately half of the UK population until we achieved herd immunity. Although over 80 per cent of Covid-19 infections are mild – that’d add up to more than six million people at risk of severe symptoms.''

What are people's thoughts?

I am not a doctor or a public health expert but I think it would have been better to have drawn peak Covid-19 to occur soon. That way, we can have the current outcomes like China.

Reply 11

Andrew97

It’s aligfly unfair to say China did this, so we should as well.

The government in China is much more authoritarian for one so its easier to lock down cities, moreover due to this when thr Chinese government tell their population to do something they tend to obey. Plus we are more selfish than that, we will still go out to get food and other stuff as well.

Aggressive Quarantine would only work if the population is willing and thr country has the means to pull it off. We don’t really, so we need a different strategy.

Reply 12

Reality Check

22

This is exactly my view on this. The advances in pathogen genomics means that a vaccine for Covid-19 is totally feasible in a fraction of time that it would have been even in the relatively recent past. You don't need to be a skilled epidemiologist to work out that delaying widespread infection by whatever means necessary for the relatively short time before an effective vaccine can be developed and produced is the right thing to do: not, as your quoted post says, have some 'survival of the fittest' mentality.

I'd like to see Boris Johnson have to choose who gets the ventilator.

Reply 13

Original post by Wired_1800

I am not a doctor or a public health expert but I think it would have been better to have drawn peak Covid-19 to occur soon. That way, we can have the current outcomes like China.

With a high short peak you get it over quicker and the impact on your economy is less, but your health care system struggles and as a result more people (predominantly the older and already sicker) die. There's not really a win-win solution.

Reply 14

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Reality Check

I'd like to see Boris Johnson have to choose who gets the ventilator.

They are probably already stockpiling available ventilators for Tory donors, billionaires, government ministers and senior civil servants, in that order. Most big Tory donors are Russian oligarchs (or their spouses), or offshored, so that's only right and proper.

The term 'herd immunity' is being grossly misused by Johnson and the so-called 'expert's he is using to front for him. Herd immunity is achieved via mass vaccination. Mass infection is a pandemic and any consequent general immunity will be built up by killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Reply 15

Wired_1800

Clearing and Applications Advisor

Original post by 2500_2

With a high short peak you get it over quicker and the impact on your economy is less, but your health care system struggles and as a result more people (predominantly the older and already sicker) die. There's not really a win-win solution.

I agree. I think a decision has to be made as soon as possible.

Reply 16

username5210332

5

Original post by san_cisco

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/herd-immunity-uk-coronavirus-robert-peston

So this particular article explores the possibility of the UK government using herd immunity to contain the outbreak.

I'm honestly not sure whether this would be necessary or even fair, particularly since China has shown that containment is possible.

Apparently:

''Roughly-speaking – given what we know about the current infection rate of Covid-19 – the disease would need to infect approximately half of the UK population until we achieved herd immunity. Although over 80 per cent of Covid-19 infections are mild – that’d add up to more than six million people at risk of severe symptoms.''

What are people's thoughts?

Once infected there has been no valid evidence of people being reinfected. The virus has not mutated yet so this would be impossible.
They say we would have to have 60% of the population infected to protect the most vulnerable through herd immunity. It's the only way. Everyone will get it eventually, you just need to control the speed...

Reply 17

PQ

21

The word “fight” in the title is misleading. This is more of a managed (or not) retreat than a fight.

Reply 18

Fullofsurprises