Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway122378 | Hacker News Reader

Can anyone explain this in layman’s terms

The paper says that herd immunity can be achived easier when the disease itself does the spreading. Because in "classical" herd immunity the vaccination does not target the active population so well. Instead when the active population gets the virus naturally it will produce stronger herd immunity.

Basically swedish model may be the right one.

What is that again?

Okay I removed that part, but Tegnell has now and then suggested the Swedish model is "herd immunity" and then sometimes suggested it's not.

It does indicate the Swedish model could work, because the paper says it's just 43% with "disease-induced" herd immunity. And according to Swedish authorities 25% of Stockholm population already has antibodies.

As I understand the Swedes, Herd immunity is not the goal they are working towards, but a possible bi-product of their strategy. The strategy as such is to keep the curve low enough, pretty much the same as everywhere else. They've just used less extreme measures to achieve this because they don't think it will matter in the long run.

That is, if you want to give them credit for any strategy at all. And no, the curve is not the same as everywhere [0].

Being a resident Swede, my lasting impression is that the so-called "strategy" has two legs (can be backed by a long list of official statements) 1: hope that the virus does not hit, and if it does, that it is not necessary to do anything and/or it is already too late anyway and that hopefully it will disappear through herd immunity. A hope that has been expressed up to twice weekly for the last 2 months or so, while the number of deaths go up and up. And 2: in a manner typical of governmental agencies everywhere: never ever admit to any mistake or error in judgement. Like admitting that the recommendation for the public not to use face masks was wrong, and was brought on by secondary concerns (over availability in hospitals). Even now (as of yesterday) the official stance is that using face masks might increase risks and efficacy is not backed by "scientific proof".

The paper should probably be seen in this light. The main author of the paper Tom Britton forms together with Giesecke and Tegnell the "herd immunity" triumvirate that is responsible for the Swedish mess that currently renders Sweden a place among the top 10 countries with most fatalities per million. At the face of it this paper just seems to confirm that protective measures actually work. But by shining the light the herd immunity aspect of the equation he makes it sound like they were right all along.

[0] https://mackuba.eu/corona/#compare?val=d&align100=1&pop=1&c=...

I don't disagree with you per se. I think it's debatable how they differ. If you just search Tegnell and Herd immunity you will find that many news sources has interpreted the Swedish model as herd immunity.

Herd immunity is horrible word, and none wants to use it anymore. But because flattening the curve does leave the virus linging around, it in many practies is same as "flatten the curve" as pointed by epidemologists:

> The "Flatten The Curve" plan was touted by every public health organization, while the United Kingdom's original "herd immunity" plan was universally booed. They were the same plan. The UK just communicated theirs poorly.

[1] https://ncase.me/covid-19/

Oh. That’s been known for weeks now. Best strategy by far

Reply on news.ycombinator.com