The coronavirus is rapidly spreading across the globe and an unprecedented pandemic is expected with some experts saying that the worst-case scenario could see as much as 80 percent of the world's population infected with the deadly COVID-19 if enough measures are not taken up. What's even worst is that there is no cure and it could take up to two years to build a vaccine for coronavirus. If nothing is done, most of the world is likely to get the coronavirus infection by the time we will have a cure.
So what the world can do until the cure is developed for the virus? Slow down the spread. And in order to do that, some countries like Australia and the UK are considering to self-infect low-risk population with coronavirus to build long term immunity. This strategy is called Herd immunity or social immunity, where you inject selected people with the virus in a bid to build long-term immunity. Although it's fascinating, herding as a strategy to combat coronavirus could be risky as it is based on a number of assumptions and they need to be correct.
What is Herd Immunity?
Herd Immunity is a way of getting low-risk population infected with the virus as a way of developing long term immunity within the community. It's a form of indirect protection from infectious diseases like the coronavirus. If a large percentage of a population develops immunity towards the virus, the chains of infection are likely to be disrupted, which slows down the spread of disease. The greater the proportion of immunes in an area, the smaller the probability that those who are not immune will come into the contact with infected people.
How effective Herd Immunity can be against COVID-19 and what are the risks involved?
Professor Ian Donald, social, environmental, architectural psychology, and behavioural factors in Anti-Microbial Resistance, says that up to 80 percent of the UK population will get infected and as the virus can't be stopped, it is best to manage it.
"The Italian model aims to stop the infection. The UK wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower-risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection," Donald said.
"At the moment, the professor says, the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that, they want to reduce, but not stop the infection rate. Ideally, they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving. That balance is a big risk."
While people continue to be treated, some mildly ill will recover and the population of immune people who can't infect will grow. The immunes can also keep things going. But the health resources are limited and there is a greater risk to be able to accurately manage infection flow. The data on infections need to be accurate and the measures being taken up need to work at the exact time and to the degree, they are required.
"After a while, most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve," professor Donald writes.
