1. What proportion of the population needs to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity? It depends on a number of factors, including how contagious a virus is, and how well a vaccine can prevent infection.
Even very contagious variants can be stopped if efficacy is high enough. 🧵
2. This is a very simple model with lots of assumptions, but gives a rough idea of what we need to aim for to achieve herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2.
Four theoretical vaccines are shown, with 60 to 90% efficacy against infection.
3. Vertical lines mark estimates of the contagiousness of the original strain of SARS-CoV-2, the UK (B.1.1.7) variant, & the Indian (B.1.617.2) variant.
The proportion of people needing to be vaccinated (vertical axis) is the point where the vaccine & variant lines intersect.
4. Herd immunity could be achieved with a vaccine that had 60% efficacy against the original strain, but it would require the entire population to be vaccinated (red line).
But a vaccine that had 90% efficacy might only require two-thirds of the population to be vaccinated.
5. However, we're unfortunately not dealing with the original strain any more.
If you look at the black dashed line, you can see we'd probably need over 80% of people to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity against the UK variant, and perhaps around 90% for the Indian variant.
6. Does this mean there's no point being vaccinated with a moderate-efficacy vaccine? No!
All of the COVID-19 vaccines do a very good job of preventing people from getting really sick.
If you're offered the chance of vaccination, you should take it.
7. However, if we don’t achieve herd immunity, there will still be some transmission of the virus in the community.
Most vaccinated people won't get seriously ill, but people who can't be vaccinated because of medical conditions will be at risk.
8. And while the vaccines are very good at preventing severe disease, they aren't 100% effective.
So if there's still some ongoing transmission, even some vaccinated people will get ill if herd immunity isn't achieved.
9. Ongoing transmission also provides opportunities for the virus to continue to evolve. The best defence against the emergence of new vaccine-resistant variants is to suppress transmission as much as possible with vaccination (& masks, ventilation, etc., while we're doing it).
10. Let's aim for herd immunity & eliminate COVID-19.
Stamping out the virus with public health measures and locking these gains in with vaccination provides the best outcomes in terms of health, social freedom, and the economy, over both the short and long-term.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I hope I’m wrong about the variant, but there are warning signs from multiple countries that the Indian variant is more transmissible than the UK variant.
This means that the measures that previously worked to keep people safe may not be enough now.
It does not mean that the situation is hopeless (it isn’t), or that getting infected is inevitable (it’s not).
The variant can’t break the laws of physics, so masks and ventilation still work. But you may have to step them up (i.e., use better masks, and increase ventilation).
Here’s a very good news story. New studies show the Pfizer-BNT vaccine works incredibly well, including against the South African variant (the most immune-evading variant known).
But the second dose is critical.
The Novavax vaccine also holds up well against the SA variant. 🧵
Real-world data from Qatar show the Pfizer-BNT vaccine is effective against the UK and South African variants, but only after the second dose.
For example the vaccine was only 39% effective against severe disease after one dose, but this rose to 97% (92-99%) after two doses.
Here’s the effectiveness by first, then second dose:
Infection:
🇬🇧 29%, 89%
🇿🇦 17%, 75%
Severe disease:
🇬🇧 54%, 100% (82-100%)
🇿🇦 0%, 100% (74-100%)
Any variant: 39%, 97% (92-99%) nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
Children get #COVID19 and transmit the virus much more than thought. My recent paper on the subject (which has now been typeset) explains why many studies got this wrong, and how we can design better research.
A security guard at the Pan Pacific hotel in #Perth has tested positive, along with two housemates. Short thread with the details.
If you’ve visited any of these sites, you must get tested & quarantine until you receive a negative result.
Masks are mandatory when leaving home.
A hotel quarantine security guard who received their first dose of the Pfizer-BNT vaccine about 1 week ago, worked at the Pan Pacific hotel on the 24th, 25th, and 26th of April.
On the 24th, two international arrivals who would later test positive arrived at the hotel.
The arrivals were from Indonesia and the US. One was infected with a variant common in the US.
The security guard, who developed symptoms on the 29th, is believed to have become infectious on the 27th. He tested positive yesterday, on the 30th of April.
A possible limitation is that mostly young children were studied.
Over half were aged <6 years, and 8 of the 12 children (67%) with long COVID were aged <3 years. As such, it may not be representative of all children.
Other studies have reported a longer duration of symptoms.
However, the proportion of children with long COVID in this study (8%) is consistent with data reported by the Office for National Statistics in the UK.
In the ONS data, 7-8% of children and adolescents reported symptoms lasting at least 12 weeks.
This article contains a number of inaccuracies, @liammannix. The results of the REACT-1 study in England (and many others) are indisputable: children are frequently infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Anyone who says otherwise at this point is either ignorant, or has an agenda.