Hacker News Reader

Comment by squarefoot | Hacker News Reader

Probably both. We should remember what was the 1st approach to the Covid problem by Johnson (that is, well over one year ago): he wanted to achieve herd immunity without having enough vaccines or not having them at all, and initially there were no imposed lockdowns or infection prevention rules. The point is that along the extremely high death toll caused by that approach, a huge percentage of people over there might have caught the virus without symptoms, therefore becoming immune to a 2nd infection or at least immune to nasty symptoms. So it's entirely possible that the herd immunity was eventually achieved, although many, including me, would agree the price to pay has been not fair.

View on HN

>he wanted to achieve herd immunity without having enough vaccines or not having them at all

Instead he managed to brew an exciting new variant, which is what every health official was warning against.

And I'm guessing that unless the majority of the population are rapidly inoculated then exciting new strains could constantly evolve until we have something truly nasty.

Sounds like you want to pontificate just to have a moan off about the PM.

I don't really see how the level of immunity could be low enough in June to allow rapid growth, and then suddenly be high enough in mid-July to cause rapid decline. Wouldn't we expect a population close to herd immunity to see slow growth, and a population just over herd immunity to see a slow decline?

If 70% of your population is vaccinated, it doesnt mean the virus spreads 70% slower.

It instead means that there are 20 million potential virus hosts in the UK instead of 67m. Way more than the population of lots of EU countries.

I think it does mean that the virus spreads slower (although the exact amount will also depend on factors like how vaccinated people are distributed among the population). Whereas in an unvaccinated population, each infected person might spread the virus to (say) five others, in a 70% vaccinated population, on average 3.5 of those others would be vaccinated, so the virus would only spread to 1.5 others. This gives a slower rate of growth. Once that rate of growth falls below 1, herd immunity is achieved. When you are close to herd immunity, that rate should be just a little above 1, leading to slow but positive growth.

I think that the question isn't slow or fast, it's exponential or not exponential. If you are getting 9 infections for every infection then that's a bit exponent. But, 2 for every infection is also an exponent - just a smaller one. Once you get below 2 for every infection then you are in the territory of slow growth - but not for long and not everywhere. The UK had a patchy delta wave, my guess is that when the non herd immune demographics and areas started to get herd immunity (drop below 2) then the breaks really slammed on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com