So, yet again we have a wild misrepresentation of "herd immunity" as a solution to the coronavirus pandemic This is simply not the case. If herd immunity comes into play, we will have already seen one of our worst-case scenarios played out in real life 1/n https://twitter.com/vanOnselenP/status/1247274160478273536 …
-
-
10/ To put it another way, we need 67% (2/3) of the population to be IMMUNE to the disease for it to stop spreading This is what's known as the HERD IMMUNITY THRESHOLD
Show this thread -
11/ But that brings us back to this earlier point The only way, currently, to be immune to the disease is to GET SICK and then GET BETTERhttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1247328596890275840?s=20 …
Show this thread -
12/ So what we're really saying is that, for the herd immunity threshold to be reached, ~67% OF THE POPULATION has to be infected That is a HUGE problem
Show this thread -
13/ How much of a problem? Well, assuming a relatively generous infection-fatality rate of 0.3%, if 67% of Australians get infected with
#COVID19 then ~50,000 people die A high price to pay indeedShow this thread -
14/ Taking more realistic estimates of the fatality rate, we might see 100,000 or more people die before reaching this point Most would, I think, regard that as the most abject of failures
Show this thread -
15/ By definition, herd immunity is not and can never be a solution to
#COVID19, unless we are comfortable with a staggering death toll finShow this thread -
16/ IMPORTANT ADDENDUM: "never" is the wrong word in the previous tweet. If we get a vaccine, or if the death toll drops significantly (due perhaps to better treatments) herd immunity becomes a very viable option
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.