Ok according to this paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...Aq_4b_D51l0gUw
Herd immunity is defined as an R-rate of lower than 1, so each new case generates fewer than 1 new cases on average.
I'm not able to find any up to date studies on Google Scholar that estimate what the current R-rate is, but gov.uk is claiming at the moment that it's somewhere around 1-1.2.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-r-value-and-growth-rate
Where they're getting their numbers from I don't know, but having a look at that Excel spreadsheet that they link, we did indeed have herd immunity in England a few months ago (at least going by the definition in the nature article), from January to June.
Of course, we were either in lockdown or under heavy restrictions during that time. Now that those restrictions have largely lifted, the R-rate is going back up, as you'd expect, and we no longer have what Nature defines as herd immunity.
The height of the R-rate was in October, when we weren't in lockdown and didn't have a vaccine.
From that, the conclusion I draw is that herd immunity is achievable through indefinite lockdowns, but the effect of the vaccine is yet to be determined, at least going purely by these numbers.
I'm not a statistician though, so I'll defer to others who have a better ability to interpret those statistics than I do.
You used to be everything to me
Now you're tired of fighting
That's a strange definition of herd immunity.
I thought the idea of herd immunity was that enough people have the antibodies that we can all go out to play.
An R rate lower than 1 can of course be achieved by us all hiding under our beds but that's not a very sustainable solution.
Sure, but how do you define "enough" in that case?
Agreed, which is a factor the Nature definition doesn't take into account, as far as I can see.An R rate lower than 1 can of course be achieved by us all hiding under our beds but that's not a very sustainable solution.
I guess a good definition would be an R rate of less than 1 with no restrictions. The issue there would be predicting how much the R rate would rise before lifting restrictions, I don't know how you'd do that.
You used to be everything to me
Now you're tired of fighting
The expert I heard the interview of said that "enough" is about ~70-80% of a population.
About 1 hour 9 in:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000wdg6
Now obviously this is from the BBC, and thus inadmissible (). And she is described as a "Mathematician, who specialises in health data."
It's actually the interviewer who says "70-80%" - and she's talking about %age of people who have been fully vaccinated which I guess is a form of herd immunity.
The expert talks about Israel who she says have got to "effectively 0" cases through vaccination and she says they unlocked when they got to over 70% of people fully vaccinated, and she notes they were still cautious.
TL;DR, her opinion is June 21st is too early and reckons we should wait a couple of months.
the thing is we're all tired of lockdown but equally the hype of the 21st as 'Freedom Day' is a guarantee that people won't just go around and act normally, they'll all go stupid crazy and up the infection rate big time
Gentleman, This is democracy manifest
NOTE: The location of this post has been moved and the thread title (which was previously Wenger is Leaving) has been manipulated by a notorious pro-Wenger moderator. What was previously a message that contained no profanity and made a comment on a real life event has now been manipulated by a deliberately provocative title. An old and crude propaganda and censorship technique.