Thread: Coronavirus
View Single Post
Old 15-07-2021, 18:08   #6428
1andrew1
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,262
1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze
1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze
Re: Coronavirus

Interesting Tweet from epidemiologist and mathematician Adam Kucharski at the London School of Tropical Medicine:

Quote:
Still see 70% quoted as level of vaccination required for 'herd immunity'.

Important to note it's now likely to be much higher. The standard (albeit rough) calculation for herd immunity threshold is (1/E) x (1-1/R) where E is vaccine effectiveness in reducing transmission.

In scenario where R is 6 (plausible for Delta in susceptible populations without any restrictions), and vaccination reduces infection/infectiousness such that onwards transmission reduced by 85%, above calc suggests would need to vaccinate (1-1/6)/0.85 = 98% of population.

If transmission reduction is less than this (which is likely the case for some vaccines against Delta), or R higher, then herd immunity wouldn't be achievable through current vaccines alone. This leads to three possibilities:

If herd immunity through vaccination alone not possible, need to either:
A) keep some control measures in place indefinitely,
B) prepare for exit wave as measures relaxed

We explored these ideas more in our (pre-Delta) paper earlier this year, with https://eurosurveillance.org/content....26.20.2100428 5/5
https://twitter.com/AdamJKucharski
1andrew1 is online now