Thread by @jeremyrhammond

This @nytimes article is disgracefully deceptive. It is pure #propaganda serving to manufacture consent for #COVID19 #vaccines by deceiving about what science tells us about the #HerdImmunity threshold and the vaccine's effect on transmission.
nytimes.com/2020/12/24/hea…

The @nytimes presents the figure of 60% as the most conservative of estimates, going up to 90% (which, absurdly, would put #SARSCoV2 at the contagiousness level of measles) when in fact scientists have also estimated that the #HerdImmunity threshold could be far lower.

For example, this preprint study estimated that the #HerdImmunity threshold could be as low as the range of 10% - 20%:
doi.org/10.1101/2020.0…

To support its characterization of 60% as a lower bound of scientific estimates of #HerdImmunity threshold, @nytimes cites the heterogeneity of transmission dynamics, claiming that the existence of "superspreader events" pushes the threshold higher. But that's untrue.

That is, the heterogeneity of transmission dynamics is an argument for a #HerdImmunity threshold LOWER, not higher, than 60%. This phenomenon doesn't push the basic reproduction number (R0) higher but illustrates a problem with R0: it assumes transmission homogeneity.

Thus, estimates like the 60%+ that simply calculate #HerdImmunity threshold based on R0 probably overestimate. As @nytimes itself has previously reported, while "superspreaders" transmit #SARSCoV2 to many others, MOST PEOPLE SPREAD IT TO ZERO OTHERS.
nytimes.com/2020/06/02/opi…

For instance, the aforementioned preprint cited transmission heterogeneity as a factor in its far LOWER estimate of #HerdImmunity threshold:
doi.org/10.1101/2020.0…

For another example, this preprint study notes that heterogeneity of transmission dynamics argues in favor of a #HerdImmunity threshold LOWER not higher than the popularly cited 60% figure.
doi.org/10.1101/2020.0…

Similarly, this JAMA study notes that heterogeneity of transmission dynamics might "contribute to slowing of community spread", i.e., REDUCING not increasing R0 as the @nytimes suggests.
doi.org/10.1001/jama.2…

This Nature article also notes, contrary to the @nytimes' characterization of 60% as a lower bound for #HerdImmunity threshold estimates, that it has been estimated as low as 10%:
doi.org/10.1038/d41586…

Furthermore, the @nytimes completely ignores the now quite vast scientific literature on T-cell immunity to #SARSCoV2 and probability of cross-protective immunity from infection with other coronaviruses that cause the common cold. E.g.:
doi.org/10.1038/s41591…

The aforementioned JAMA study also noted "T-cells are important mediators of immunity. Recent reports have suggested that cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses may confer relative protection of the population from [#COVID19]."
doi.org/10.1001/jama.2…

There are numerous studies on the possibility of pre-existing immunity to #SARSCoV2, which would mean that the popularly cited #HerdImmunity threshold of 60% would be overestimated, but the @nytimes ignores this whole body of research completely to present that as a lower bound.

Finally, the whole assumption underlying the @nytimes article is that the #COVID19 #vaccines that have received FDA Emergency Use Authorization will confer #HerdImmunity once the threshold is reached. This is irresponsible vaccine misinformation.

In truth, we have yet NO DATA on the effect of these #COVID19 #vaccines on transmission. #Fauci himself has acknowledged we don't know whether they will prevent transmission - yet the @nytimes cites him also claiming they will. The #CognitiveDissonance & #hypocrisy is staggering.

Here, for example, is #Fauci acknowledging in response to the question of whether the #COVID19 #vaccines will prevent transmission that "We don't know that yet."

@nytimes' characterization of them as knowingly able to confer #HerdImmunity is #propaganda.
newsweek.com/coronavirus-an…