Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[tp12]

Originally Posted by GTom

Despite they haven't changed policy their daily numbers are not growing since mid-April, even a little decrease can be seen. Yet, they are far from herd immunity, less than 1/5th of the population met with the virus.

Their daily numbers are fluctuating a lot. They had one of their highest numbers in the last week so a rolling average is best to apply. On this graph, they're steady in terms of rate of death. Unfortunately the majority of countries have gotten on top of, at least, the first wave of infection and their rates of death have fallen and some in countries it's negligible. Sweden stands out against those and that's why they're moving up the leaderboards and not down them.

[tp12]

I'd also like to add that there's nothing to confirm that herd immunity will be possible with Covid-19.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

I'd also like to add that there's nothing to confirm that herd immunity will be possible with Covid-19.

If herd immunity doesn't work, then a vaccine won't work. If that is true, then we are truly screwed.



We don't know what the extent or duration of acquired immunity is, but there are good hints from the infection curves in New York and Lombardy where a large percentage of people were infected and the rates of infection fell drastically.



So, let's hope.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If herd immunity doesn't work, then a vaccine won't work. If that is true, then we are truly screwed.

Do you have any information that supports this position?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by tp12

Do you have any information that supports this position?

Loads of bias and a total lack of any academic training on the subject

[GTom]

Originally Posted by tp12

I'd also like to add that there's nothing to confirm that herd immunity will be possible with Covid-19.

That's correct, read somewhere, that in no more than 3 years the new strains will be different enough that immunity acquired today will be as good as useless. It doesn't mutate as fast as the flu, but it is indeed evolving.

Vaccination might be a bit different story but not necessarily. Depends how the actual vaccine works.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by GTom

That's correct, read somewhere, that in no more than 3 years the new strains will be different enough that immunity acquired today will be as good as useless. It doesn't mutate as fast as the flu, but it is indeed evolving.

Vaccination might be a bit different story but not necessarily. Depends how the actual vaccine works.

[emoji106]

I haven't read any stories linking a vaccine to herd immunity but happy to read anything anyone has. I did read an article today about the potential for a vaccine within the next 12 mths but I think we're still too far out to know anything for sure. We're in early stages of testing of multiple vaccines, though, so that's promising.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

Do you have any information that supports this position?

Which position? Basic information about how vaccines work?


See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine


Read also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_immune_system



Vaccines work by simulating the disease and stimulating and training the adaptive immune system. The result is acquired immunity. We don't know the extent or duration of acquired immunity to this particular virus. If there is little acquired immunity or if it is not long-lasting, then neither vaccines nor prior infections will create herd immunity and we won't be able to eradicate the virus.



Vaccines stop epidemics via herd immunity. Herd immunity is a basic epidemeological principle. Basically, when enough people have gained acquired immunity either through having themselves been infected, or by having been vaccinated, then paths of spreading the disease are blocked, vulnerable people are protected, and the epidemic dies down. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity.



Herd immunity is partially effective even when less the the critical number of people in the population have acquired immunity. Having any percentage of immune people in the population reduces the r0 of the epidemic because immune people can't spread the disease. So basically every immune person slows down an epidemic to a certain degree. It's thought that this effect is disproportionately strong, because not every person has the same propensity to spread the disease. People who have high propensity to spread the disease (e.g., health care workers, flight attendants, etc. etc.) will get infected sooner because they are more exposed, but once they recover the reduction of spreading is disproportionate to their numbers. We think this is what we saw in Lombardy before the lockdown, and what we are seeing now in New York City. The curves in those places turned down much more sharply than we would expect otherwise. Lombardy particularly interesting because the curve turned down sharply before any lockdown happened.



Conversely, populations with very few immune people are most vulnerable, as every person then is a potential vector of further infection. Such populations can have more explosive outbreaks, than populations in which there is already a certain amount of immunity. This is what the Finns are worried about.

[GTom]

Originally Posted by tp12

[emoji106]

I haven't read any stories linking a vaccine to herd immunity but happy to read anything anyone has. I did read an article today about the potential for a vaccine within the next 12 mths but I think we're still too far out to know anything for sure. We're in early stages of testing of multiple vaccines, though, so that's promising.

We are "herd immune" to polio, measles & Co, thanks to the respective vaccinations AND the fact these are not mutating much. Flu evolves rather quickly rendering vaccines from previous years useless.

[J.R.]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Germany has had an increase in cases, with basic reproduction rate back up over 1. German borders are opening except so far with Poland and Denmark.

Germany is a federal republic and not that centralized organized as other European countries are. It's the decision of each federal state which measures are taken.


I'm living in the most populated state NRW (Northrhine-Westfalia) with 18m people which is more than each of the scandinavian countries. We had a relatively soft lockdown (schools, bars, restaurants, shops closed for a while) but the boarders to Belgium and the Netherlands always were open with absolutely no boarder controls. Now schools, shops and restaurants all are open again but under safety regulations. It was at no time for nobody forbidden to leave Germany and the incoming boarders were only closed for private travel not for business.


Nevertheless the number of Covid-cases has been and is actally not that high than in other regions of Germany (especially the southermore) and in the neighbour countries Belgium and the Netherlands. The deaths here in NRW are actually 1,483 out of 18m people.


I think the international figures are not comparable and there is an increasing discussion in Germany whether the measures taken by the governments are adequate.

[GTom]

Originally Posted by J.R.

Germany is a federal republic and not that centralized organized as other European countries are. It's the decision of each federal state which measures are taken.

Borders are managed centrally I guess.

[J.R.]

Originally Posted by GTom

Borders are managed centrally I guess.

Yes but it was a claim of our NRW state government not to close the boarders to Belgium and the Netherlands. So the federal government did not close them. The political background is that boarder controls and police are luckily not centralized in Germany but in the responsibility of each state government.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Which position? Basic information about how vaccines work?

My question was very clear and you still haven't answered it. Do you have any information supporting this statement:

"If herd immunity doesn't work, then a vaccine won't work."

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...
The Swedes -- as is their culture -- have been quite forthright about their failure to protect nursing homes, but you are right, and this is a failure which you can see in a lot of places around the world.
...

The only instance I have read where not enough was done to limit/prevent the spread of the virus in nursing homes was the infections in Washington state at the start of the pandemic. More could/should have been done but there was a failure to communicate.

Then I read this today in the Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yor...d=hp_lead_pos5. This is likely behind a pay wall.

What is in the story is flat out criminal. The state of New York REQUIRED nursing homes to take in "recovering" virus patients.

Total coronavirus deaths in New York as of May 12 were 22,013. The state has said its death totals only include coronavirus cases that were confirmed by a lab test.

The state’s nursing home deaths were reported as 2,752 confirmed deaths and 2,646 presumed deaths as of May 12. The counting methodology has changed over time, causing at least one jump in documented cases, and the current total doesn’t include nursing-home residents who die in hospitals.

This is a big percentage, look like 24%, of the number New York fatalities and it should not have happened. Preventing the virus from getting into nursing homes is difficult, but REQUIRING homes take in people who had, and likely still have the virus, is criminal, if not worse.

This policy has been changed but the damage has been done.

The WSJ reported this requirement, and it's dangers, back on March 26th, https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-mandates-nursing-homes-take-covid-19-patients-discharged-from-hospitals-11585228215?mod=article_inline

It is shocking that this was mandate, and once required, it stayed in affect for this long. Just unreal. When the virus was causing havoc in Italy, the reports were talking about the death toll of the elderly. How anyone could have mandated this policy, how it was approved, and how it stayed in place this long, is shocking.

Later,
Dan

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

My question was very clear and you still haven't answered it. Do you have any information supporting this statement:

"If herd immunity doesn't work, then a vaccine won't work."

I did answer it.

I said -- vaccines work on a population level, by creating herd immunity in the population. That's how they stop epidemics. I gave links to more detailed information on the subject, too.

Vaccines work on an individual level by giving the vaccinated person acquired immunity, by the same principle that people who have been infected get acquired immunity. If you don't become immune from having been infected, you won't become immune from getting vaccinated, either. I gave a link to more detailed information about this, too.

"Acquired immunity creates immunological memory after an initial response to a specific pathogen, and leads to an enhanced response to subsequent encounters with that pathogen. This process of acquired immunity is the basis of vaccination." op.cit.


So if you don't become immune from getting sick and recovering, you won't become immune from any vaccine, either. Both effects come from the same mechanism -- acquired immunity.


There is certainly acquired immunity after having been sick and recovered, to some degree or another. You wouldn't recover at all, if your immune system were unable to defeat the virus. The question is how long lasting the effect is, and whether the virus is mutating fast enough to invalidate your acquired immunity (as GTom said). We don't have a lot of knowledge about this yet in this particular case, because this is a completely new virus.