Here's a chart showing how many of us have either gotten COVID or been vaccinated against it:
(Note that the line on the chart shows inverse seroprevalence. That is, the number of people who haven't had COVID and haven't been vaccinated. This allows me to draw a proper trendline, but you have to subtract the numbers on the trendline from one to get the actual seroprevalence.)
The trendline suggests we're now at 99.4% seroprevalence in the US population. We've finally reached the fabled level of herd immunity!
Sadly, it doesn't matter. It turns out that neither vaccines nor previous infections stop the spread of COVID. They just make it less dangerous. Oh well.
POSTSCRIPT: In case you're curious about how this breaks down, roughly 60% of the population has had COVID. (Almost) all the rest have been vaccinated.
Whoever named "herd immunity" gave it an accurate name. It isn't individual immunity for a member of the herd; it merely means the herd won't die out from the threat.
When I risk exposure from iron-heads who refuse to take sensible precautions, I am not concerned with the survival of my herd (i.e., the human race). I am concerned specifically with the survival of myself, my family, and my friends, each of whom is an individual whose loss would have no statistical significance to our herd, but who would mean a great deal to me.
It isn't individual immunity for a member of the herd; it merely means the herd won't die out from the threat.
It depends on the disease in question. "Heard immunity" does imply a degree (hopefully a large degree) of protection for the individual when it comes to something like, say, measles, or polio. If heard immunity is robust, outbreaks are less common, and any one individual is thus less likely to become ill.
With Covid, alas, this effect is weak or next to non-existent.
Correct, as regards probability of exposure, which then implies probability of infection. However, the word "immunity" is misleading in that context, as regards the individual members of the herd. The herd is protected by the degree of acquired immunity as a statistical property of the herd. But the individuals are "protected" by favorable statistics, but not by "immunity," per se.
"Herd Immunity" was supposed to be when enough of the population was immune to the virus, that R-naught, the mean number of new infections from each infection, would drop below 1.0, which means the pandemic would die out on it's own. If there were 30 infected people and enough people were immune so that R-naught was 0.5, then those 30 infected people would only pass on the virus to 15 other infected people, and they would pass it on to only 8, and then 4, 2, and 1 in successive generations.
Because the vaccine did not make you immune to catching the virus, and natural immunity was short lived, I don't think we'll ever get to Herd Immunity and the virus going away.
The vaccination makes COVID less serious. I'm not sure about repeated infections; the more times you're infected, the more your chance of permanent harm from COVID (aka "long COVID").
SAD
I'll take less dangerous than less transmisable. If vaccines made them less dangerous I'd consider that a success.
Vaccines are still worth it. My husband and I ran our own two-man experiment this year: I got boosted, he did not, because like most men he is often a fussy baby. Then we both got the latest version of covid: I was in bed for a day, he was there for a week. He’s already asking when he can get the new booster this year lol.
+1
Now, how can we spread the word to another 50 million hard-heads?
I haven't skipped a booster dose. Gotten COVID twice, mild long-term symptoms. Around October I'll get Flu, COVID, and perhaps Pneumonia vaccinations.
"We've finally reached the fabled level of herd immunity!"
What a non-sense.
Herd immunity means the disease cannot spread around. Covid clearly still does spread, so we don't have herd immunity.
True. I guess “fabled” is another way of saying “I’m not a public health official so don’t listen to me.”
What needs to be done next time is fairly clear: isolate and trace in early stages until everyone is vaccinated. This presumably worked for many countries in Asia (including New Zealand and Australia) which had much lower death totals than the US and Europe.
What exactly did those countries do? Was masking important? Nobody in the media (including Kevin) seems to be interested in finding out about this - they just want to argue about things like whether schools should have been kept open. Masking for personal protection is not the important thing - it's preventing transmission.
This assumes that the next pandemic is similar, but if it is not isolation may be even more important. On the other hand vaccines may be more effective in preventing infection.
Has the CDC or any public health group said we’ve reached “herd immunity”? If so, let us know.
Otherwise, I don’t think that’s true.
Herd immunity typically applies for viruses that are relatively stable. For example, the virus that transmits measles produces few variants and an immunization rate of 94% can be said to offer herd immunity.
The virus transmitting Covid famously produces many variants. More new strains mean greater likelihood that prior immunity may not provide protection.
A new formulation of the vaccine is coming in about two months. Whether or not additional formulations will be needed in the future is TBD.
60% of the US population has had covid.
Thanks, Republicans!
You're the smart people!
Am I the only person who finds it vanishing unlikely that only 60% of the US has gotten Covid?
It's incredibly virulent and has been circulating for four years now. There's no way that that many people have not gotten it.
I think it's probably more accurate to say that 60% of the population has had covid with sufficient symptoms to recognize what it was.
Yeah, neither my wife nor I has ever had anything remotely sufficient to even think having it is a possibility.
I like to think we never have, but who the hell knows?
But both being over 60 we're religious about getting every shot as soon as it's available to us.
I think I'm up to 7 shots total, *and* had it once. And that one time, the fever came on super-quickly, but then with paxlovid disappeared equally quickly. The desire to sleep 24 hours/day, however, lingered for a couple of weeks.
So, who knows what that would have been like without the vaccines. But I'm willing to believe that the vaccines made the whole thing milder and pass more quickly, with hopefully fewer long term effects.
I do remember back in the day having gotten swine flu a couple of months before the vaccine was out there. And all I can say is that if all the vaccine would have done was shave off one day from that bout, it would have totally, totally been worth it. That was miserable.
I wish we could do the multiversal comparisons and see how this all turned out in other realities. I tend to believe that the ones without DJT as president did worse. Probably the ones with a 2nd term Romney did the best. I think he would have managed it well, and further gotten less shit from the Republicans who would have been trying to support Ryan in the next election. I think Hillary would have tried to manage it well, but would have been constantly attacked by the Republicans who in our corner of the multiverse clearly showed that they were willing to trade lives for votes.
> The trendline suggests we're now at 99.4% seroprevalence in the US population.
Um, you know it's July and not August, right? The curve is flat enough I imagine it doesn't really matter, but the labeling on the chart isn't quite the same as the conclusion...
> In case you're curious about how this breaks down, roughly 60% of the population has had COVID. (Almost) all the rest have been vaccinated.
I don't believe the 60% number. Given how many vaccinated people have gotten COVID twice, and how easy it is for COVID to spread, it seems unlikely that there's a large pool of people who never got COVID.
this was my question as well. it seems like more than 60% have had it at least once.
Listen to any business roundtable discussion on this
Excessive absenteeism is a serious problem for many businesses and for it to happen over a period of 90 to 120 days is certain to affect THAT businesses bottom line - if not put that business out of commission permanently.
Many businesses suggested, implied, coerced their employees to get vaccinated not because they were run by Dems, or they believed in the vaccines themselves but because the businesses themselves could not afford to NOT be open
Frame the arguments from a business perspective - they would be supportive of infant vaccinations, and employee vaccinations - old people they don't give a damn about. That way their employees are less likely to need time off to care for a sick child or care for themselves if they are sick.
We've certainly reached a point where covid is manageable. That is likely the best we can expect from a disease that spreads moderately easily and mutates quickly enough that vaccination or previous infection doesn't provide full immunity.
Bird flu seems to mutate pretty easily these days as well. We could be in for another difficult pandemic in a few years.
Herd immunity is time-dependent relative to viral mutability.
My wingnut cousin is in a state that is equal parts despair and epic annoyance that no one else cares about divine intervention even when it happens live on television.
And also he says the perfect conservative candidate doesn't exist.
Well, I have the guy for him,
https://i.redd.it/59ehaqipbhfd1.jpeg
Herd immunity doesn't mean what you think it means, Kevin. We achieved herd immunity for measles long ago, but there are still outbreaks. Herd immunity refers to having enough immunity in the population to reduce the effective reinfection ratio to below 1.0. Below that level, outbreaks can still occur, but they die out on their own.
There's also the matter of mutation of the virus, and also the inconvenient feature that for this particular virus, immunity seems to wane relatively rapidly.
Kevin:
Where did you find this data. I don't see any seroprevalence data after early 2023 up on the CDC website. It's probably hidden up there, but I can't find it.
About the graph: Why plot INVERSE seroprevalence and then have to explain laboriously what you did rather than just plotting straight seroprevalence. The line would then approach 100% asymptotically rather than 0% and that would correspond better to the word herd immunity.