[vhfpmr (OP)]

So can the vaccine give us herd immunity if enough of the population have it, or will the virus continue to circulate anyway until a vaccine-resistant mutant emerges?

[alancalverd]

Yes and yes, because herd immunity isn't the same as inherent tolerance or immunity. If 80% of the population is immune through vaccination or prior infection, the probability of anyone else being infected becomes very small (herd immunity) but those that are infected can indeed breed mutants.

[vhfpmr (OP)]

The point I was leading to really is that if you can achieve herd immunity by a sufficient margin, any outbreak will quickly die out, so the risk of a resistant mutant emerging is significantly reduced. The anti vaxxers are arguing that there's no point in them being pressurised into getting vaccinated, because it's only themselves they're putting at risk.

The fewer there are vaccinated, the quicker there will be a resistant strain, and the higher the risk that this will occur faster than we can develop and administer new vaccines.

[alancalverd]

The anti vaxxers are arguing that there's no point in them being pressurised into getting vaccinated, because it's only themselves they're putting at risk.

If that were true, they wouldn't be shunned by intelligent people or loathed by those they infect.

[evan_au]

Yes, we could get to herd immunity, if enough people are vaccinated (including children).

But you seem to be talking about elimination.
- Elimination is much harder, and it's only worthwhile if the disease causes an ongoing severe health burden, and doesn't have an animal reservoir.
- We know several other species can catch COVID-19 (including house cats and mink), so it will be harder to eliminate entirely.
- It is possible that when the children who caught it as a child get old, it won't be any worse than the common cold, and it will just become endemic (like several other coronaviruses which we group under "the common cold"). That means it doesn't pose an ongoing burden of disease.

[charles1948]

Doesn't it seem obvious, that the main objection to the term "herd immunity"  comes from the word "herd".

This word evokes ideas of a "herd" of cattle.  And so makes people think they're being treated like cattle.
Which is bound to arouse feelings of offence, resentment and indignation.

Suppose instead a more agreeable term had been used.  Such as "population immunity". Or "public immunity"

Would that have been accepted, as a concept,  and  so perhaps, have avoided  the lock-downs?

[CliffordK]

We are already seeing case numbers plunging in the USA and much of Europe. 
I still believe the disease will become a seasonal disease, and while we did get cases last summer, they weren't as many as last fall.

What we don't know is whether the case numbers will drop to essentially zero over the summer as often happens with the flu/influenza, or if we'll see numbers continually trickling in.

I am still hoping for a multivalent booster vaccine to be available this fall to help us get through the coming winter.

The problem will be whether we will get the vaccine distributed broadly enough to the third world which has been struggling to get the doses to prevent a fall resurgence of a vaccine resistant strain.

There would be a pretty extreme benefit to the richer countries to give a way a few billion doses of the vaccine to the poorer nations, and knock this thing down once and for all.

[CliffordK]

I will say that a Flu/Influenza free winter was quite something. 

We can't do everything we did this year to control COVID every year, but there would be global benefits of broadly distributing the Flu vaccine with the COVID vaccine.  And also pounding on Polio.

[evan_au]

Would (calling it "population immunity" or "public immunity") have been accepted, as a concept,  and  so perhaps, have avoided  the lock-downs?

Calling herd immunity a different name would not have:
- Made the virus any less infectious
- Reduced the number of people who got infected (in the absence of a vaccine)
- Reduced the number of fatalities
- Reduced the need for social distancing, face masks or lockdowns.

What might have helped the UK is if, instead of seizing on "herd immunity" as an excuse to go about your normal business, they had:
- Observed that they would not get herd immunity until most people had been vaccinated
- Observed that getting a new vaccine approved would optimistically take 6-9 months, and at least 6 months to roll out to a significant fraction of the population
- And declared that, in the meantime, there would be border quarantine, contact tracing and compulsory mask-wearing
          That might have reduced lockdowns (but not prevented them)

Even New Zealand, with some of the most effective quarantine restrictions in the world, has had several short lockdowns, and they are thousands of kilometers from their nearest neighbours (most of whom also have low levels of COVID-19).

[alancalverd]

What we don't know is whether the case numbers will drop to essentially zero over the summer

Doesn't seem to be the case in India. The virus inhabits 37°C thermostats and really doesn't know what the weather is like outside. Whether it prospers depends entirely on how those thermostats interact.

[Bored chemist]

If the herd isolated at home for 3 weeks at at time, it would be immune.

If every member of the herd was vaccinated with one of the fairly effective vaccines we have, that would also produce herd immunity.

Another way to do it would be to remove all restrictions and let the virus run riot.
After a while we would have a "survivor population" with herd immunity.

So far, we don't seem to have done any of those properly.

Round here, we got worryingly close to the third option- which is the one with the highest death rate- and have decided against the first two.  But that's because people voted for Boris,

[alancalverd]

Two different interpretations of herd immunity.

I would distinguish between the survivor population as a herd of immunes, i.e. a subspecies with inherent and hertiable immunity or tolerance, and a population of "normals" who have simply survived but do not possess heritable immunity.

Problem is that the wild carriers of COVID seem to be in the first category, and human survivors mostly in the second, larger but much less robust category. So as long as there is a wild pool of infection, we need to retain active protection.

Allowing the lazy journalese of "voted for Boris", I wonder if "voting for Jeremy" would have been any better. The Labour Party under JC couldn't agree to implement the result of a referendum without having another one, and the man himself, having campaigned to put his finger on the nuclear button, couldn't say whether he would press it or scrap it. Faced with a COVID epidemic, I'm sure the front bench would still be arguing about whether it was inherently discriminatory, was it permissible to suggest it originated in a socialist utopia, or should known terrorists be vaccinated before appearing on a public platform with The Leader. The choice seems to be between corrupt incompetence and prejudiced indecisiveness.

[charles1948]

Look, just replace the unfortunate phrase "herd immunity" by "communal immunity", and all cattle-based negative reactions will vanish.  It's just a matter of getting the words right.

Aren't there many examples of this in human history?

[alancalverd]

My comment still stands, whatever you call it.

[Bored chemist]

It's just a matter of getting the words right.

No, it's not.
The problem with "herd immunity" isn't the use of a word commonly used for animals.

The problem with herd immunity is the massive death toll if you try to do it without a vaccine- as Boris was planning to do.

Changing the name doesn't save any lives.

[Bored chemist]

The Labour Party under JC couldn't agree to implement the result of a referendum without having another one,

Which was the only sensible policy, given that the will of the people had shifted in the mean time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_United_Kingdom%27s_membership_of_the_European_Union_(2016%E2%80%932020)#/media/File:Brexit_post-referendum_polling_-_Right-Wrong.svg

What would you have done?
Would you have acted like Boris and been a dictator leading the population down a path which you knew was the wrong one, or asked if they were sure?

and the man himself, having campaigned to put his finger on the nuclear button, couldn't say whether he would press it or scrap it

It's usually considered sensible not to announce your military strategy to your enemies in advance.

So, your major complaints seem to be that he acted sensibly.
How very upsetting for you.
But it does suggest that he might have acted sensibly as PM rather than, for example, going round a hospital in a pandemic, shaking hands with patients, and then bragging about it.

[charles1948]

It's just a matter of getting the words right.

No, it's not.
The problem with "herd immunity" isn't the use of a word commonly used for animals.

The problem with herd immunity is the massive death toll if you try to do it without a vaccine- as Boris was planning to do.

Changing the name doesn't save any lives.

The question of whether more lives would've been saved by letting the Covid virus run its natural course, instead of desperately trying to fend it off by inventing vaccines and locking down entire countries, will only be answered in the future.

[Bored chemist]

The question of whether more lives would've been saved by letting the Covid virus run its natural course, instead of desperately trying to fend it off by inventing vaccines and locking down entire countries, will only be answered in the future.

No.
Letting the virus run riot would kill essentially all the susceptible people.
Any policy which saves any of them is better.

Of course, in the long run, everybody dies, so it's a meaningless way to look at it..

[charles1948]

The question of whether more lives would've been saved by letting the Covid virus run its natural course, instead of desperately trying to fend it off by inventing vaccines and locking down entire countries, will only be answered in the future.

No.
Letting the virus run riot would kill essentially all the susceptible people.
Any policy which saves any of them is better.

Of course, in the long run, everybody dies, so it's a meaningless way to look at it..

Isn't that exactly what Boris thought -  Why inflict suffering on living people by imposing "lockdowns"?  It's meaningless.  Because in the long run, as you say, all the people will end up dead anyway.

I think you and Boris are in scientific tune, but you don't like him because he's a Tory. Isn't that a correct analysis?

[Bored chemist]

It's meaningless.  Because in the long run, as you say, all the people will end up dead anyway.

Drop dead.