A lot of people have been talking about it, so I thought I might do a bit of a thread on plausible reasons for the decline in COVID-19 cases in places where behaviour hasn't changed much recently 1/n
2/n The basic background is that there are some places across the world where there hasn't been a reportedly huge behavioural change since Nov/Dec last year where cases are dropping, sometimes quite quickly
So what's causing this?
3/n The explanation proposed by some has been that these places have reached "herd immunity", essentially a threshold where enough people have been infected and recovered such that the disease can no longer spread
4/n Is this likely?
Well, we know that these locations almost certainly haven't reached a traditional herd immunity threshold. Serology and other data points to most places in the US and Europe as being far below the 60-70% infected required
5/n It's also probably not vaccines. While vaccine efforts are ongoing in all of these places, few countries have managed to vaccinate more than a small % of their citizens (with some very big outliers)
6/n Some have proposed lower herd immunity thresholds, that only require 30-40% of the population to be infected. Now, it is ~possible~ that these have been reached and this is causing the decline
However I'm not sure it's likely
7/n We know from places like Manaus that not only can a large proportion of people in the population get infected, but that you can see a massive epidemic even after at least 30% of an area has recovered and become immune to COVID-19 thelancet.com/journals/lance…
8/n This doesn't entirely discount the lower herd immunity threshold, but it does make it somewhat less likely
What else could be happening here?
9/n I think one very plausible explanation is simply a combination of behavioural changes and some herd effects. This sounds complex, but it's actually pretty simple
10/n We tend to think of herd immunity as a fixed concept. Reach a threshold - 30%, 40%, 50% etc - and the disease stops spreading and eventually goes away
This is actually only one aspect of herd immunity as an idea
11/n Herd immunity is ultimately based on a simple fact - if some proportion of people in a population are immune to a disease, the disease will spread less
12/n The threshold may be when the disease stops spreading - when the reproduction number (Rt) goes below one - but even at lower levels of immunity there will be some impact on the spread of the disease
This is what I mean by herd 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴
13/n What does this have to do with COVID-19? Well, say we're talking about the US. Depending on which estimate you take, somewhere between 20-30% of the entire country has been infected with and recovered from COVID-19
14/n In addition, we know from various data sources (this is Google mobility data) that while behaviour might not have changed substantially since late last year, it still isn't *normal* from a 2019 point of view
15/n You also have to consider that even mobility doesn't paint a fulsome picture of how our behaviour has changed while living through a global pandemic. There are many minor differences in our lives that may at a population level have an impact on disease spread
16/n What this means is that it's not unlikely that rather than the traditional R0 of COVID-19 of ~2.5-3, the US is really looking at a number a bit lower than that even before you take immune people into account
17/n And given that somewhere around 30% of the entire country is immune to the disease - vaccinated+recovered - we are starting to see herd effects come into play
This is speculative, but I think a reasonable argument to make
18/n The big caveat to this seemingly good news is that the declining numbers require people in the US to maintain various cautious behaviours until the vaccinated population is much bigger
19/n If this speculation is correct, and everyone entirely dropped their guard against COVID-19, even in places that were very hard-hit you'd expect to see another resurgence of the disease
As we did in Manaus
20/n TL:DR I think a reasonable explanation for declining COVID-19 cases in a number of places is a combination of long-lasting behavioural changes alongside enormous numbers of infections. Hopefully vaccines can bridge the remaining gap in the near future
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This stuff is fascinating. Pay to low-income workers would increase by $509 billion under the bill, but the CBO has assumed that this is a fixed system and that higher wages -> higher prices -> less spending -> fewer jobs
Even more interesting is when you really dig into the weeds. For example, half of all those 'lost' jobs are estimated to be from teens working at the minimum wage
This is a problem that is quite easily solvable. In Australia we have age-adjusted minimum wages for precisely this reason
Always remember the Golden Rule of international comparisons: the most common explanation for a difference between two places is to do with DATA COLLECTION
For example, maternal mortality. Commonly used as a proxy for the wellbeing of a healthcare system
Also, notoriously complex to measure. Here's some examples from the UK, US, and Australia on the measurement
And those are just the top-line statements! The true divergence between the recording across healthcare systems can be massive, because everything from death certificates to doctors' training differs
This is a fascinating example of a complete misrepresentation of risk
- the risk for a 58 year old from COVID-19 is actually quite high (around 1 in 200 risk of death)
- the risk from being inside is complex, but likely minimal
Now, social isolation is harder to assess, and it obviously varies by person, but given the evidence we have on excess mortality in places with long lockdowns that haven't seen a massive increase, it's mathematically impossible for it to be higher than that from COVID-19
Moreover, going out and about during a pandemic has implications for people other than yourself, who may not be aware that you are so blasé about risks
Something that is important to note - despite the somewhat fractious debate about this bad paper, I have not nor will I ever say that closing schools is necessarily a good thing
The issue here is a terrible paper that is wrong in many ways. The scientific community should be shocked and appalled at the actions of journals and authors when mistakes are pointed out in their work
But removing this one impactful study from the literature won't shift the needle that much. The question about opening and closing schools during a pandemic remains, as ever, complex