I feel it is important to call out misunderstandings about what 'herd immunity' means. It is clear from this little thread that @TheEliKlein has no idea. I'm not trying to be mean, just to correct a decidedly... odd take. I hope he'll end up understanding it a little better 1/n
First, I am going to ditch the phrase 'herd immunity' because bluntly it annoys me and it understandably makes folks indignant about being compared to cattle. We will use population immunity instead 2/n
There are lots of very clever (too clever by half imo) takes on how few people you might actually need to have immunity in order to exclude the virus from a community. That's what the term means by the way, not just *slowing* it 3/n
The sort of immunity we're talking here means excluding it entirely such that outbreaks naturally go extinct because each introduced infection doesn't encounter enough susceptible (non immune) hosts to ensure transmission 4/n
So what this means is that if such immunity exists, infections will be going 📉 regardless of anything else we do. So let's look at a few places shall we? Let's look at places with a lot of disease in the spring which might be expected to have the most population immunity 5/n
Exhibit A) the UK. Tough spring surge. Per capita mortality now somewhere around 600 or so per million. Not much meaningful NPIs or test trace etc. Ouch. That's not 📉 6/n
I should note btw that there was *huge* lack of testing in the spring, and so that second surge of infections is still nowhere near as large as the first despite how it appears, but it is still going up. Action now will help prevent it getting worse 7/n
Exhibit B) Sweden per capita mortality also ~600/million. Suggests relatively mild interventions w a strong social safety net can avoid exponential growth even if it also shows how utterly disastrous it is to allow many infections in older people. still not so nope 📉 8/n
Honestly, anyone saying Sweden shows herd immunity works is just an example of extreme cognitive dissonance. If rates of infection carry on about the same, there's not herd immunity. Duh. 9/n
Exhibit C) the Boston area. Where was hardest hit in the spring? The relatively poor northern suburbs. Surely these *must* now be on the downturn, there are even antibodies to suggest many were infected bostonglobe.com/2020/04/17/bus… 10/n
Nope. Even is Chelsea is no longer the highest risk in the state it's because others have caught up - transmission continues there. No 📉 boston.com/news/coronavir… 11/n
So I come to NYC. Which has a quite literally eye watering 2500+ deaths/million so far. It is also enacting reasonably strong interventions still, even if we've moved on from the disaster of the spring. Infections must be dropping of their own accord. They must be. Right? 12/n
Er wrong. It's low but not going down of its own accord. No 📉. That steady rate is a tribute to sacrifices made by literally millions to limit transmission (data from www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid…) 13/n
if significant population immunity were present anywhere, then we'd be able to release restrictions more readily without risk of blowback surges. The fact that's not the case is a message which we can learn from or not 14/n
Just because you want something to be true, doesn't mean that it is.
Night
15/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There is a super interesting quote from John Edmunds in this article on the brewing row over the UK’s Covid inquiry and it’s relevant way beyond that country. It concerns the use of scientific advice by politicians 1/n theguardian.com/business/2023/…
To start with I have to say “follow the science” has always been a slogan rather than a policy. Follow it where? That depends on what we want to achieve. Provided the goal is clear, then scientists can say whether a policy will likely help or hinder. And there’s more to it… 2/n
Even if the goal is unclear, you can still ask scientists what they think the likely consequences of a policy would be. And so this quote is key 3/n
Finally returning to this, long after it has been digested by the twitterati. As someone who has worked on molecular epi, transmission, (meta)genomes etc it seems to me that the great majority of the commentary has spectacularly missed the point 1/n
This is not direct evidence of animals (raccoon dogs prominent among them, although far from the only possibility) being infected, but it is *exactly* what we would expect to find if they were 2/n
Had virus *only* been found in samples with human genetic material, it would be different. Even that would not allow us to rule out animals being infected too, just not among the samples collected. But we would not have evidence they *had* been exposed/infected 3/n
This is a very interesting article, featuring a quote from yours truly about how many lives *could* have been lost in the US due to the pandemic before vaccines. This is my reasoning 1/n washingtonpost.com/health/2023/03…
This figure from Jones et al JAMA 2021 shows estimates of how many Americans were infected by the time vaccines were available (the dotted line). As you can see, it is a little more than 10%. Maybe 13%. These are estimates from 1443519 blood donations collected over this time 2/n
In the spring of 2020, some people who really ought to know better had compared the threat of covid to the threat of flu. By dec 14th 2020, more than 300 thousand Americans had already lost their lives to this virus that only got a name in February 3/n
When the local wastewater numbers go up, people often pay attention and get anxious - so worth noting that they just dropped *a lot*. What does that mean, and what's with this plateau since the summer? 1/n
first a little caution - as you can see these numbers can fluctuate quite a lot, and so the next sample might be up again. But that doesn't explain the plateau, and the fact we see similar in the south system makes me take it more seriously 2/n
In fact, this sort of pattern should not be considered very surprising at the moment. After all, the point when the virus was equally able to infect all of us is far in the past. Now there is a patchwork of immunity in the population, which makes it harder 3/n
If you think mask use has insignificant benefits and is unjustified under all circumstances, you are wrong.
If you think that changing levels of immunity and available therapies don’t change the benefits of masks, you’re also wrong
If you choose to not wear a mask when asked to, I disagree strongly. It’s polite and kind to do so
Likewise masks can and should be used to mitigate transmission in high risk environments like healthcare
All masks are not alike. A fact which delights those who seek to weaponise them for political gain because they can always default to whichever most helps their point and riles up their base (compare - all masks are good, some masks are good, no masks are good)
Genomic epidemiology is a wonderful new tool in our kit for detecting cases of transmission - but we always need to consider whether two independent cases might have very similar or even identical genomes by chance
this problem is especially acute early in outbreaks, when there has been insufficient time for the pathogen population to accumulate diversity, such that independent transmission chains are readily distinguished