Hacker News Reader

Comment by roca | Hacker News Reader

It's worrying that these supposed professionals don't even know what "herd immunity" means.

From the declaration:

> herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable

This is not the correct definition. Here's a correct definition: https://www.livescience.com/herd-immunity.html

> Herd immunity describes the point at which a population is sufficiently immune to a disease to prevent its circulation.

These are very different definitions. If a disease spreads through the whole population (i.e. everyone eventually gets it), then herd immunity was never established, regardless of the infection rate.

View on HN

Stop this please. Herd immunity is not a well-defined term [1]. Their definition is just as valid as yours. "i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable" is a perfectly fine assessment of herd immunity.

[1]https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/52/7/911/299077

That paper certainly does not admit their definition. The abstract is very clear:

> A common implication of the term is that the risk of infection among susceptible individuals in a population is reduced by the presence and proximity of immune individuals

As I said, a steady infection rate does not imply there is any such reduction, therefore it does not imply herd immunity.

If you have a reference that uses their definition of herd immunity, please provide it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanics

I would like to avoid devolving into an argument about semantics. My original point is that nothing about the original throwaway line is wrong per se or indicates that they do not know what they are talking about. I find these sorts of nit-picks odd.

OK, thanks, you have a fair point.

I still believe that defining "herd immunity" as just barely reaching the HIT will confuse readers of the declaration, who will have mostly encountered the term in contexts where it means the disease is no longer endemic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com