The narrative on herd immunity is clearly changing. On May 1, it was: "Try to reach it without a vaccine and millions will die" /1 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-herd-immunity.html
Today, it's a different story. The @nytimes is forced to acknowledge the growing number of voices who challenge the idea that achieving COVID herd immunity would require that 60% of the population be infected. /2 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/health/coronavirus-herd-immunity.html
The bias in favor of orthodoxy is still present, however.
The reporter states that "most experts" reject the notion that variation in susceptibility (from, say, prior exposure to other coronarviruses) explains why New York is not seeing a resurgence. /3
The reporter states that "most experts" reject the notion that variation in susceptibility (from, say, prior exposure to other coronarviruses) explains why New York is not seeing a resurgence. /3
But "most experts" seems to be a handful of the original alarmists who opine. For example, Carl Bergstrom claims that herd immunity thresholds based on mathematical models are just "guesses." But if a 10-20% HIT is a guess, so is 60%. Why favor one over the other? /4
It actually stand to reason that a 60% HIT should be rejected as unrealistic. It is a biological fact that not all individuals are equally susceptible to anything. Any variability in susceptibility will demonstrably lower the HIT below what it would otherwise be. /5
Even Trevor Bedford acknowledges that there must be a "herd immunity-like effect" to explain why Florida and Arizona show cases coming down despite mobility going up. His response to the Q&A at the end are instructive. /6 https://www.vumedi.com/video/covid-19-herd-immunity-are-we-closer-to-herd-immunity-in-hard-hit-regions-than-we-previously-thought/
At any rate, If you haven't yet heard it, don't miss yesterday's episode with @mgmgomes1 (mentioned in today's NYT piece) with whom we discuss her work in detail. /end https://accadandkoka.com/episode140/