
Why I believe the US has herd immunity in some states - gloriosoc
https://realscience.community/2020/08/17/why-i-believe-the-us-has-herd-immunity-in-some-states-and-is-barreling-towards-it-as-a-country/
======
tghw
NYC had only 20% prevalence in mid-June[1], after they had contained the
initial outbreak[2]. Therefore, the drop in new cases is very unlikely to be
from herd immunity, which would need prevalence to be in the 80% range.

The author seems to ignore that most people are interacting with far fewer
people because they are working from home, kids mostly aren't in school, and
our other interactions with people outside our household have been limited and
altered to decrease the chances of transmission.

It's nice to think that some people had memory T-cells that could deal with
the virus, and it seems some people do, but based on the original R0 numbers,
it would be foolish to think that is the case for enough of the population to
conclude that we've reached herd immunity.

[1] [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-
updates/comm...](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-
updates/commercial-lab-surveys.html)

[2] [https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases-50-states/new-
yor...](https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases-50-states/new-york)

~~~
rdtwo
The theory was that some large percentage of population is either immune or at
least significantly more resistant to covid. Do once the initial 20% get it
the other 50-% are resistant so you get your 70% number that way

~~~
tghw
Barring concrete evidence that is the case, it's a very dangerous assertion to
make. It would also mean that the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 is much
higher than we originally thought, amongst those without "natural immunity".

Even if it were the case that half the population was naturally immune, we
would want to understand why. The leading explanation at the moment is T-cells
and previous exposure to other coronaviruses. Problem is, there's a good
chance that previous exposures would be less likely in certain populations,
like children, which could be especially problematic as we're debating sending
kids back to school.

At the very least, we need more data on T-cell prevalence/reactance to SARS-
CoV-2 before we can jump to the conclusion that people are already immune.

But right now, it's far more likely that we've seen drops because of the
drastic measures that have been taken and the changes in daily behavior across
the population.

~~~
anoncake
We already know that the virus is harmless to children. No need to grasp at
straws to pretend that our collective hysteria was necessary.

~~~
Tainnor
While kids are less likely to get sick from it (less likely doesn't mean zero
cases or even deaths btw), they can sure as hell spread it. There was some
research suggesting that they're spreading the virus as much as (or not
detectably less than) adults [1]. Yet at the same time, there are also some
indications that kids might be less likely to become infected [2]. How that
will affect school reopenings is anyone's guess.

[1]:
[https://zoonosen.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/microsites...](https://zoonosen.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/microsites/m_cc05/virologie-
ccm/dateien_upload/Weitere_Dateien/analysis-of-SARS-CoV-2-viral-load-by-
patient-age.pdf) [2]:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0962-9](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0962-9)

~~~
anoncake
Less likely doesn't mean zero cases, but non-zero doesn't mean non-neglible
either.

~~~
Tainnor
It's still a stretch to say that the virus is "harmless" to children.

But that's beside the point. The real point about children is that they can
spread the virus just as well, even when they don't get sick - especially
since it's also really hard for at least smaller children to keep distance or
wear masks.

~~~
anoncake
And cruel, almost as cruel as withholding their education from them and
forcing them to social distance.

~~~
Tainnor
You continue to miss the point but ok.

~~~
anoncake
This "point" about children is not about children at all. It's about scared,
egoistic adults willing to sacrifice children's welfare for their own.

------
subsubzero
Some up to date news regarding T-cells and their implications suggest this in
fact could be a thing with some of the harder hit states. Apparently T-cells
will "remember" an infection after a person is exposed to and recovers from
covid-19[1]. This is a huge development as it suggests that neutralizing
antibodies are not the only defense against a reinfection of covid-19(and
these antibodies only last a few months) whereas T-cell memory of infections
lasts years.

Also, there are some signs that other cornavirus family of viruses(common
colds, not covid-19) could trigger a memory with these t cells, this is a
possibility why some have extreme cases and others show no signs of
sickness[2]. Couple these points with data showing 40% of people who contract
the virus are asymptomatic[3] this leads to the idea that alot more people
have had the virus than what is reported, which in this case is a good thing
as its closer to herd immunity(if all the above is found to be true).

[1] - [https://www.businessinsider.com/long-term-coronavirus-
immuni...](https://www.businessinsider.com/long-term-coronavirus-immunity-t-
cells-2020-8)

[2] - [https://www.livescience.com/common-cold-coronaviruses-t-
cell...](https://www.livescience.com/common-cold-coronaviruses-t-cells-
covid-19-immunity.html)

[3] -
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/08/08/asymptomati...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/08/08/asymptomatic-
coronavirus-covid/)

~~~
gloriosoc
yes agree. And the CDC reports there are 10X the cases of COVID than has been
reported based on antibody studies. And there are many more deaths than have
been reported [https://realscience.community/2020/08/16/why-a-lot-more-
peop...](https://realscience.community/2020/08/16/why-a-lot-more-people-have-
died-from-covid-than-is-being-reported/). All reasons that we are closer to
herd immunity than is the common perception.

~~~
DougN7
Doesn’t herd immunity for a country of 350 million need somewhere on the order
of 220 million to have been exposed and recovered? I don’t think we’re
anywhere near that yet.

~~~
ekianjo
How do you define that 220 is the right number?

~~~
mr_toad
It’s an estimate based on the probability of a virus finding new hosts. the
higher the proportion of potential hosts that are immune, the less likely the
virus is to spread.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Herd immunity is the threshold where the replication rate falls below 1. It's
not the point at which transmission stops. The disease will continue beyond
that point.

~~~
hatenberg
Thats, uhm, very limited understanding. Currently behavioral changes (mask,
etc) are much larger factors affecting R0 and none of them have any bearing on
hwrd immunity.

Plus we are finding that traditional herd immunity (aka just let the disease
rampage) may come at the cost of heart disease in a majority of cases.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Of course they have an effect on herd immunity. If behaviour changes then the
replication rate changes and hence the herd immunity threshold changes.

------
tunesmith
Should it be called herd immunity if it depends on current social practices of
physical distancing and masking? Sure, you might have "effective herd
immunity" in some regions, but those herd immunity percentage targets go up if
people start interacting more.

~~~
asdff
I think the name still applies, and it's intuitive that this number is a
function of the connectivity of your network.

~~~
rallison
I think using herd immunity to apply to temporary network states is going to
be more confusing than helpful. There will be some fuzziness at the edges -
some of the changes and adaptations we make during this pandemic will probably
persist longer term.

------
freehunter
> This analysis and the conclusions that I have drawn are my own and do not
> necessarily reflect the opinions of the wider scientific and medical
> communities.

That’s an important point because the wider scientific and medical communities
don’t agree with this analysis at all.

~~~
gloriosoc
Well some do- MIT's paper, MIT Tech seems to
[https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/11/1006366/immunity...](https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/11/1006366/immunity-
slowing-down-coronavirus-parts-us/)

~~~
notacoward
They only seem to agree with the weaker claim that immunity _plays a role_ in
the patterns we're seeing, not the stronger claim that general herd immunity
has been achieved anywhere. And it's a _very_ brief superficial article, not
exactly comparable to peer-reviewed studies that tend to reflect a nearly
opposite conclusion.

~~~
gloriosoc
Data source for "peer-reviewed studies that tend to reflect a nearly opposite
conclusion"?

~~~
notacoward
You go first. You claimed there were others that agree with you, but that
doesn't really seem to be true. Provide a _serious_ citation, and I'll
reciprocate.

~~~
gloriosoc
The MIT tech is serious. MIT doesn't publish garbage science in their news
paper.

~~~
danielmarkbruce
I'm not sure many/any serious scientists take it seriously. It's interesting,
but it's far from peer reviewed journal type material.

~~~
gloriosoc
The Tech quotes peer reviewed science like the lay press. But they generally
do a better job of quoting quality science and conveying the research
accurately (as opposed to politically). I think the issue here is speed. Most
of the research informing this pandemic is scientist opinion, back of the
envelope calculation, and pre-prints. The reason for this is that peer review
lives in the world of years and we need information in the world of days to
weeks to make good decisions for public health. If we wait for peer review,
the pandemic will be over or the conclusions will be obsolete.

~~~
nickthemagicman
This person is discrediting MIT.

There's nothing you can say to make this person consider your viewpoint.

~~~
danielmarkbruce
No one is discrediting MIT. MIT Technology Review simply isn't a science
journal. Nothing is peer reviewed. It wasn't intended to be, no one thinks it
is. It's an interesting technology magazine.

~~~
nickthemagicman
MIT journal is written by some of the top scientists in the world. Its not
peer reviewed but it at least deserves consideration and respect.

But like a lot of intelligent ideas now days...if it doesn't fit someone's
narrative it's immediately discredited and discarded.

Only the experts who agree with the narrative are to be taken seriously.

It's become a real problem to discredit ideas that disagree with ones
narrative even if they're from expert sources.

~~~
danielmarkbruce
Then maybe just quote the person who wrote the article. You are missing the
point: If you want to appeal to an authority in science, it's a high bar. I
read the MIT Technology Review. I like it. I respect it for what it is. But,
it's simply not good enough in a science discussion to say "MIT Technology
Review says X". The bar is higher. It's not a function of politics or existing
narratives or anything of that nature.

------
theontheone
This is barely even an article. You state a trend and then say herd immunity
must be happening because... you cannot think of any other reason.

~~~
gloriosoc
Can you think of another reason? The states with above ~30% infection rates
are now trending down. They are not being more careful. Sometimes logic is
that simple.

~~~
PhrosTT
New Yorkers are only interacting outside, where there is airflow constant
supply of fresh air.

Same with the beaches you photo'd.

People in NY/NJ are NOT hanging out together inside. They're not in schools,
not in offices, etc.

So YES, they are being more careful.

~~~
gloriosoc
OK I was in Ocean City NJ at the beach a month ago. This is just not true. I
was in the women's bathroom- no masks, 6 inches from other people, no airflow.
I'd say about 1/10 wearing masks. People crowded together.

------
smallgovt
Isn't this hypothesis pretty easy to validate/falsify?

Just take a random sample of 1K NY residents and test them for antibody/t-cell
presence. 1K is plenty to make a statistically significant sample size when
you're suggesting the true infection rate is double digits.

Why do we NOT know what the population infection rate is? It seems relatively
easy to do.

~~~
gloriosoc
But we also don't know what antibody/T-cell levels, which btw testing for
Tcells is not widely available or commercial, would = herd immunity. So there
is no result that would prove herd immunity.

~~~
smallgovt
> But we also don't know what antibody/T-cell levels... would = herd immunity.

OK, but wouldn't a random sampling at least provide an answer to what pct of
the population was infected at some point? That seems like a great starting
point.

~~~
gloriosoc
Yes, and for some reason, NYC and the CDC are not releasing results later than
mid April. It is very suspicious imo. They were releasing antibody results and
then abruptly stopped without explanation.

~~~
smallgovt
Can you point me to the latest released results? Thanks!

~~~
gloriosoc
This just came out [https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-
testing.pa...](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-testing.page)

~~~
smallgovt
The antibody test results for this data set don't seem representative of the
population at large. Reason being, if you look at the antibody positivity
rate, it consistently drops as time goes on (whereas everything I've read
suggests it should increase with time as more ppl have been infected).

My guess is that at the beginning, hospitals were only testing COVID-sick
patients, and as time went on testing became more widespread.

~~~
gloriosoc
Or the initial antibodies drop in people that have had COVID over time (which
they probably do). The antibody tests test for the kind of antibodies that are
present immediately- over time a previously infected person will have less of
those antibodies and more of the back up Tcell kind. You can read a review on
this here:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02400-7](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02400-7).

------
Hnrobert42
When it comes to CoVID-19 analysis, I prefer mine in the form of a peer-
reviewed paper from a reputable journal.

~~~
gloriosoc
Good luck- you might be waiting a while. Peer review takes months to years. At
that point it's too late for preventative strategies for a pandemic.

~~~
Hnrobert42
Years? No. And if you want to improve the peer review process, lobby for
paying reviewers
([https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5)).

Regardless, I stand by my original point. I prefer peer-reviewed analysis. The
alternative is a free-for-all where junk claims equal weight with legitimate
science. Such a system is usually supported by folks whose work can’t make it
through the traditional system.

~~~
gloriosoc
Oof now we are saying that my work is not of publishable quality? The data are
from two days ago so it would be hard to get it peer reviewed in that time.
But I do plan on publishing. I am putting it out there so people can make more
informed decisions (about schools etc) in real time.

~~~
bobosha
You could put this up on biorxiv and invite other researchers to comment.

~~~
gloriosoc
That's a good idea- that too will take some time- writing a paper is not a
small task but I will put it on the to do list.

------
hnarn
I block new domains via NextDNS, so if anyone's interested this domain was
only registered 2020-07-31.

~~~
gloriosoc
Yep it's a new site, just created it:)

------
1kGarand
Simple math below.

NY has 1,300 deaths per million, and NJ has 1,800 deaths per million
currently. Let's take the average and say that they reached herd immunity with
1,500 deaths per million.

Great.

For the entire US (320 million), that implies 480,000 deaths before reaching
herd immunity.

Does 480,000 deaths sound good to anyone?

~~~
gloriosoc
It's not good, no. But I am not suggesting that this was a good plan. I am
just saying it is the plan that is happening. I think the US government took a
really bad route in handling the pandemic. New Zealand had the best model imo-
shut down hard and early and eradicated. Hardly any deaths. Were able to
reopen in 6 weeks.

~~~
skolsuper
Does the US approach mean countries like New Zealand need to stay isolated
until a vaccine is found? Or would herd immunity eventually eradicate the
virus in US?

~~~
gloriosoc
They should definitely have anyone abroad strictly quarantine for at least 14
days upon entering the country. Herd immunity would slow it to a crawl but it
seems like it could pop back up in odd pockets of previously unexposed people.
We also still don't know how long immunity will last- scientists are hopeful
that it will last until a vaccine is produced but that's not a guarantee.

~~~
skolsuper
Thanks

------
hellofunk
That first paragraph, where the author seems to, even in jest, place blame on
his college professor, all the wording and weird emphasis on that, it’s just
really really strange. I certainly would not want to be his college professor.

~~~
coldtea
Not even sure what you're getting at.

It's a common type of tongue-in-cheek comment, one can find in tons of
writings. "Blame X who inspired me to study Y, and led me down this path".

There's no actual blame, it's just praise for his professor (and that's
immediately understood as such).

There's nothing "really really strange" about it, and there's no "weird
emphasis" (it's a mere passing line in a big post). If anything, your pointing
it out is weird.

~~~
hellofunk
Eh, I read it differently. It’s not just one line, it’s three sentences
followed by a reference to the political climate. I think it’s a bit much and
it threw me off while I was reading it. I’ve seen those kinds of jesting
comments in other blogs, but this one is more awkwardly phrased. When they
write “Sorry Dr.Hume” I do actually feel sorry for his professor!

------
gloriosoc
Ok I'm going to put this at the top since I believe it sheds further light on
many of the points. This is a talk at UCSF's medical grand rounds (the weekly
science talks given to all doctors at UCSF). At 38 minutes, one of the
scientists cited by the MIT tech explains his findings in support of herd
immunity. It's not peer reviewed yet because it's brand new- peer review takes
a minimum of three months. He shows open table and google maps data in support
of people not being much more careful in Florida or AZ. He also explains the
interplay between mask wearing etc and RT. Hopefully you will find this to add
extra rigor to what I have been saying. It is pretty dry- but that is the
nature of this sort of talk.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew2MEF4XX8w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew2MEF4XX8w).

------
phenkdo
Sorry for hijacking this thread, but it'd be great if some serious
science/politics show hosts an extended debate from both POVs and have a
serious scientific conversation about what's next in covid? herd immunity or
not?

------
josephby
> Why would Floridas numbers start to decrease if not for herd immunity? We
> know they aren’t being more careful. Disney land reopened and there is a
> police sheriff who literally made a rule that police officers and people
> going into the station were not allowed to wear masks.

This is idiotic. Rather than “herd immunity” one could, in fact, be seeing the
impact of large numbers of people having been scared straight simply avoiding
further contact.

The author’s conjecture could be correct but they offer no proof.

------
newsbinator
Does Sweden have herd immunity? They didn't lock down, but they did implement
social distancing recommendations.

Does Belarus have herd immunity? No lockdown, no social distancing to speak
of, basically nobody wears a mask, er, anywhere. I see people in the centre of
Minsk having face-to-face conversations all day long. And now there are tens
of thousands of people protesting/yelling/hugging each other without masks.

I very much hope the answer is yes and these countries do have something close
to herd immunity. But that feels like wishful thinking.

~~~
gloriosoc
This is what the MIT Tech has to say about Sweden (and I agree): "Lessons from
Sweden Outside the US, researchers are also closely tracking the role of
population immunity in national responses. Sweden, for example, did not impose
a strict lockdown, and saw a large number of deaths starting in April. Since
then, however, the number of new infections has declined. The nation’s leaders
said last week that children would go back to school unmasked. “I would say in
Sweden there is no doubt that immunity plays an important role, more than in
other countries,” says Britton. “Now this epidemic is slowly stopping.”
[https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/11/1006366/immunity...](https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/11/1006366/immunity-
slowing-down-coronavirus-parts-us/)

~~~
danielmarkbruce
I don't think you realize the quoting of MIT Technology Review isn't helping
you. It's hurting.

~~~
gloriosoc
? care to explain?

~~~
danielmarkbruce
MIT Technology Review says X is an appeal to authority. They aren't one. Hence
it doesn't work. It also makes you seem naive.

------
dr_dshiv
Yall gotta know that life is almost totally normal in the Netherlands and has
been for months. Almost no one is dying. It's likely because people get so
many colds in the winter, so there is general immunity.

Or we are all about to die...?

~~~
ketamine__
I spent several pandemic months in the Netherlands. I have two ancedotes.

Often if I was running on the sidewalk and encountered another person they
would cross to the other side of the road (or I would).

On my street there were 3-4 parties every week. I work late so loud music
didn't effect my sleep much.

Generally I felt like people kept their distance although I think compliance
is a big issue with lockdowns everywhere.

------
fragmede
We _know_ that the numbers are being futz with to make things look less bad.
They've artificially low, and have been since the data has been redirected
through the White House, and the expressed political beliefs of the resident
there. In particular, by playing with the number of tests being run.

Longer explanation here (not mine):
[http://martinhillortiz.blogspot.com/2020/08/coronavirus-
case...](http://martinhillortiz.blogspot.com/2020/08/coronavirus-cases-and-
playing-games.html)

~~~
gloriosoc
Yeah I'm pretty worried about data corruption. I have been planning to compare
all the databases. Thanks for the link- I'll check it out tomorrow.

------
mchusma
There have been multiple studies now that suggest significant herd immunity
kicks in around 20-30% infection rate. We should see in a couple of weeks but
if every state and country continues to hit an infection wall around 30%, it
bodes well that the end is near.

It also suggests that even 10-50M vaccines (in the US) can make an enormous
impact and this thing may be over (as a severe widespread issue) in 2020.

I'm excited to see the next 4-6 weeks of data on this.

~~~
SomeoneFromCA
"Herd Immunity" is a spectrum, as some already commented. It depends highly on
the introduced restrictions measures. So for some limited masking it will
appear at the earlier moment, but once people stop wearing them, the threshold
will go up.

------
1kGarand
I think the winning countries in this pandemic would be the ones who were able
to collectively wait for a vaccine while maintaining low death rates.

Sadly US will not be one of those.

------
somewhereoutth
Can someone explain to me why every Covid submission that makes it to the
front page of HN seems to take the 'denialist' perspective? Is an agenda being
pushed? There must be so much important science being done right now, surely
we would rather hear about that.

~~~
smallgovt
How is this a 'denialist' perspective? The author is affirming that COVID is
real and so widespread that some areas are reaching herd immunity...

~~~
somewhereoutth
The idea is that if we have reached herd immunity then we can all go back to
work/school and forget about Covid. This is a very dangerous line of thinking,
and indeed is self fulfilling - ignoring Covid will sure enough result in herd
immunity (assuming we get lasting immunity - unlike the common cold
coronavirus!), but at the cost of thousands of lives and serious long term
health effects.

------
smallgovt
Interesting that this is flagged. There are almost no strong claims made in
the article. Are people not open to a discussion about herd immunity?

~~~
dang
I don't think it's an unreasonable submission (which, just to pre-empt some
objections, is an orthogonal question to agree vs. disagree), and it's a bonus
that the author is here to comment. We'll turn off the flags for now.

~~~
gloriosoc
Thanks!

------
not2b
When herd immunity is reached new cases don't hum along at a lower but steady
rate, as they are in New York State. Herd immunity means that infected
individuals can't find enough non-infected people to infect, R0 is well below
1, meaning that cases exponentially drop to zero. Check out the chart for New
York's new cases, it isn't happening.

[https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-
york/](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/)

~~~
gloriosoc
Herd immunity is not in reality a single cutoff, it's a spectrum. So there is
some point- looking like ~30% where R<1 and cases dip. But the > the %, the
more immunity.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Technically it's the threshold where R drops below one. You might expect
transmission to continue for some time.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Overshoot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Overshoot)

~~~
gloriosoc
Sure. That is the technical definition. My point is that the rate at which
cases will drop is proportional to the percent of the population that is
immune. It's not a binary.

