Herd immunity: How many people need to be infected for it to work?

Early in the pandemic there was a lot of talk about herd immunity but how exactly does it work and are we anywhere close to achieving it?

Monday 20 July 2020 17:31 EDT
Comments
When faced with potentially grim consequences, our behaviour is naturally to prevent the transmission, which lowers the herd immunity requirement
When faced with potentially grim consequences, our behaviour is naturally to prevent the transmission, which lowers the herd immunity requirement (Getty)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Nearly 100 years ago, two British researchers, William Topley and Graham Wilson, were experimenting with bacterial infections in mice. They noticed that individual survival depended on how many of the mice were vaccinated. So the role of the immunity of an individual needed to be distinguished from the immunity of the entire herd.

Fast forward a century and the concept of herd immunity is now widely discussed in government dispatches and newspaper articles. But what does it actually mean?

When a disease such as Covid-19 spreads through the population, it leaves some people immune, at least in the short term. The people who become infected later will increasingly have contact with these immune people and not with the susceptible ones. As a result, the risk of infection is reduced and eventually the disease stops spreading. This might happen even if some people in the population are still susceptible.

Vaccination can be used to protect susceptible people and thereby hasten the decline of the epidemic. It can also be used to stop the virus from spreading in the first place.

How does it work?

Imagine a population in which everybody is susceptible. An infected person (the red dot in the chart below) arrives and the virus spreads with the ever-increasing number of new cases. The epidemic continues until most individuals catch the virus and become immune to it or die.

Epidemic spread with a random number of secondary cases and average R=2; four generations are shown from the first person marked in red, through yellow, green and blue. Empty circles represent individuals who are still healthy
Epidemic spread with a random number of secondary cases and average R=2; four generations are shown from the first person marked in red, through yellow, green and blue. Empty circles represent individuals who are still healthy (Adam Kleczkowski)

If some people are protected – for example, in the initial stages of a mass vaccination programme – the disease will spread more slowly.

Protecting a few people, the grey circles, does not stop the epidemic
Protecting a few people, the grey circles, does not stop the epidemic (Adam Kleczkowski)

An even more substantial proportion needs to be protected to completely stop the virus, but amazingly it does not need to be the whole population.

Successful protection stops the epidemic from further spread
Successful protection stops the epidemic from further spread (Adam Kleczkowski)

In the 1970s, mathematical epidemiologists found out that this proportion depends on how infectious the disease is, with a simple formula relating it to the reproductive number, R. For measles this critical percentage is 95 per cent but for influenza, it could be as low as 35 per cent.

Vaccination coverage and measles cases in the USA
Vaccination coverage and measles cases in the USA (Julius Senegal, CC BY-SA)

Once the population reaches herd immunity, either through vaccination or naturally by recovering from the disease, any new infection chain will quickly die out. In this way, the population is protected from future outbreaks, but only as long as the immunity levels are maintained.

If the immunity level falls below the critical value, the disease can re-emerge. Newborn individuals who are susceptible will need to be vaccinated, and those whose resistance to the disease falls over time might need boosters.

Coronavirus herd immunity

The current estimate of R for Covid-19 is around 3, but is perhaps as low as 1.4 and as high as 4. The corresponding herd immunity level is 60 per cent (50 per cent to 75 per cent).

This value is in the absence of any non-pharmaceutical control measures, such as lockdown. Maintaining some levels of social distancing in the long term allows the desired immunity to be lower while keeping the population safe.

A long time might be needed to eventually eradicate the disease, even after the herd immunity level is reached. So the final size of the epidemic, the number of people who have been through infection when the virus is finally eradicated, can be much higher.

The range of population proportion to achieve herd immunity and the final epidemic size depend on the reproductive number, R
The range of population proportion to achieve herd immunity and the final epidemic size depend on the reproductive number, R (Adam Kleczkowski)

Are we there yet?

It is not easy to determine how close we are to the herd immunity level or whether we will ever reach this stage.

First, the critical assumption is that the coronavirus infection results in a lasting and uniform resistance to future outbreaks. This is far from certain, and if people can catch the Sars-CoV-2 virus more than once, as is the case for the common cold, it will make herd immunity disappear. From large studies to estimate the population immunity, we know that the numbers are currently between 5 per cent and 25 per cent.

Second, the reproductive number, R, varies with location, and so does the herd immunity level needed to stop the disease.

Third, studies suggest that some people have a much higher resistance to Covid-19, perhaps because they suffered from another similar disease in the past or were vaccinated against other diseases.

Finally, there is a large variability in people’s response to the virus and in the length of time for which someone preserves the levels of antibodies they use to fight the infection. The immunity might not be equally distributed among those who have been ill with Covid-19.

People who suffer most might come from the areas that are also most at risk. Such diversity might significantly lower the herd immunity levels needed to stop the disease by targeting only these parts of the society where it is needed most. This phenomenon resembles the ring vaccination strategy that was successfully used to combat such diseases as smallpox.

Localising immunity where it is needed most will lower the herd immunity threshold even more
Localising immunity where it is needed most will lower the herd immunity threshold even more (Adam Kleczkowski)

Individuals or the herd

The concept of herd immunity, although useful for planning a response to the pandemic, is not without controversy. In a campaign to achieve it, many people are exposed to an increased individual risk to protect the rest of the population.

Not imposing strict lockdown measures or relaxing too early might lead to people becoming immune to Covid-19 sooner, reaching herd immunity earlier. But this also leads to excess deaths of vulnerable people who would have survived otherwise.

Herd immunity needs to be maintained. The level required to stop the disease depends on disease transmission, which in turn depends on human behaviour. When faced with potentially grim consequences, our behaviour is naturally to prevent the transmission, which lowers the herd immunity requirement.

Once this is reached, other factors (social, economic, risk of vaccine complications) become more important, transmission increases as a result of behaviour change, and herd immunity is lost. In devising successful strategies, governments must take into account both the population and individual risks and benefits.

This article was originally published on The Conversation

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in