Thailand’s vaccination program is about to run into another roadblock

[ChipButty]

2 minutes ago, chalawaan said:

There you go, so  this Army-obsessed country has no shortage of suitable candidates then, the jab is cakewalk compared to not screwing up a blood sample, even nurses who take blood every day miss, or go right thru the vein. The jabs are tiny, pop it into any meaty bit and plunge, done.

When I mentioned getting the army to help to my wife the look I got, like dont think so

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

Herd immunity is achieved when one infected person in a population generates less than one secondary case on average, which corresponds to the effective reproduction number R (that is, the average number of persons infected by a case) dropping below 1 in the absence of interventions. 

 

There are no hard and fast rules for what percentage of the population (as a whole) needs to be vaccinated in order to achieve that goal.  The WHO estimates between 60-80%.  Some scientist however estimate as little as 50%, and there is strong science to back up these lower numbers.

 

With the increase in variants, which are more infectious and could potentially impact the effectiveness of the vaccines, that percentage is now estimated that it could be higher—some say up to 85%.

 

Just as important though, the typical calculations for the herd immunity threshold assume that each community member has the same susceptibility to the virus and mix randomly with everyone else in the community.  However, that does not happen in real life.  In actuality, Herd immunity can vary from group to group, and subpopulation to subpopulation.  Once such real-world variations in density and demographics are accounted for, the mathematical estimates for herd immunity fall. 

 

Therefore, herd immunity modeling during an ongoing pandemic can only be mathematical models, so it's really impossible to predict what percentage of the population as a whole must be vaccinated in order to achieve actual herd immunity.  It can only be known for certain from a historical perspective.

 

 

Maybe try linking to your text next time as its virtually all copied and pasted without attributes to the original:

 

"Herd immunity is achieved when one infected person in a population generates less than one secondary case on average, which corresponds to the effective reproduction number R (that is, the average number of persons infected by a case) dropping below 1 in the absence of interventions."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00451-5

 

Just as important though, the typical calculations for the herd immunity threshold assume that each community member has the same susceptibility to the virus and mix randomly with everyone else in the community.  However, that does not happen in real life.  In actuality, Herd immunity can vary from group to group, and subpopulation to subpopulation.  Once such real-world variations in density and demographics are accounted for, the mathematical estimates for herd immunity fall. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/health/coronavirus-herd-immunity.html

 

 

 

 

[chalawaan]

4 minutes ago, ChipButty said:

When I mentioned getting the army to help to my wife the look I got, like dont think so

Silly me, I forgot where we are. Yes given the "best and brightest" Thai warriors are all in Parliament House swapping flour export tips, I see her point.

[WaveHunter]

45 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Evidence on this other than an opinion?

"Some scientist however estimate as little as 50%, and there is strong science to back up these lower numbers."

 

Before your little essay you said this, where is your evidence of this?:

"So, the actual number of people that must receive vaccination to achieve herd immunity is significantly less than 70% of the total population."

 

Challenges in creating herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection by mass vaccination

https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)32318-7/fulltext

My "little essay" (as you like to put it) is based on a number of studies I've read from extremely well vetted scientists and researchers, and as I said before, these studies as well as others that estimate varying thresholds are somewhat meaningless with respect to Covid since the pandemic is still active, and a definitive threshold will only be known from a historical perspective once the pandemic has ended.

 

Here is one study by Dr. Saad Omer, Director of the Yale Institute for Global Health and professor of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases at Yale School of Public Health, and appearing in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).  

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2772167

 

I also base it on some of the information presented The Lancet article that you linked as well.

 

There are many other studies you can read through Google Search that discuss the varying range of thresholds from below 50%  up to over 86% that may be associated with Covid, and that's what leads me to say that there is NO definitive threshold for herd immunity with regard to Covid at the present time.

 

In other words, it is just as wrong to say it is 70% as it is to say it is 50% or any other number becuase these numbers are only the result of a hypothetical mathematical modem, and do not reflect what actually happens in the real world.

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by WaveHunter

[248900_1469958220]

6 hours ago, Smithson said:

But they don't tell you until you get there and wait in line for two hours

Oh please....don't even joke about such things......For anyone that has lived here for a while THOSE kind of situations come up more often than they should.....the umpteenth copy of my passport that gets put in the filing cabinet along with the other 55 copies of my passport at immigration.....The office lady that swears you dont need a workpermit at this bank to open a bank account....yes she 'checked'....then after sitting there for 45 mins....you get the picture. 

 

[placnx]

3 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

You should consider that 70 % for herd immunity does not require those with natural antigens from previous (recovered) infection, or children under 12 to be vaccinated.  So, the actual number of people that must receive vaccination to achieve herd immunity is significantly less than 70% of the total population.

The thinking has changed. Even children younger than 12 can get Covid and spread it.

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

My "little essay" (as you like to put it) is based on a number of studies I've read from extremely well vetted scientists and researchers, and as I said before, these studies as well as others that estimate varying thresholds are somewhat meaningless with respect to Covid since the pandemic is still active, and a definitive threshold will only be known from a historical perspective once the pandemic has ended.

 

Here is one study by Dr. Saad Omer, Director of the Yale Institute for Global Health and professor of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases at Yale School of Public Health, and appearing in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).  

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2772167

 

I also base it on some of the information presented The Lancet article that you linked as well.

 

There are many other studies you can read through Google Search that discuss the varying range of thresholds from below 50%  up to over 86% that may be associated with Covid, and that's what leads me to say that there is NO definitive threshold for herd immunity with regard to Covid at the present time.

 

In other words, it is just as wrong to say it is 70% as it is to say it is 50% or any other number.  It is the same sort of mistake as defining death rates from this pandemic before it has actually ended.  

 

As in last year study that you linked:

 

"Assuming no population immunity and that all individuals are equally susceptible and equally infectious, the herd immunity threshold for SARS-CoV-2 would be expected to range between 50% and 67% in the absence of any interventions."

 

This was before variants and also assuming it was a 100% efficacy vaccine which they are not.

 

The UK has over 50% of of its population fully vaccinated and they are now having an uptick.

 

To say 50% is enough is misleading and reckless.

[placnx]

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Some experts now are stating far lower than 70% for herd immunity, while some are saying it will not happen at all. Some experts firmly believe that antigens from natural infection and recovery are actually more effective than vaccination while others disagree.  I think it's safe to say that the actual truths will only be known after we can look back on this from a historical perspective, once Covid is in check worldwide.

Actually one jab in a person who recovered from Covid produces large numbers of antibodies.

[WaveHunter]

17 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Maybe try linking to your text next time as its virtually all copied and pasted without attributes to the original:

 

"Herd immunity is achieved when one infected person in a population generates less than one secondary case on average, which corresponds to the effective reproduction number R (that is, the average number of persons infected by a case) dropping below 1 in the absence of interventions."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00451-5

 

Just as important though, the typical calculations for the herd immunity threshold assume that each community member has the same susceptibility to the virus and mix randomly with everyone else in the community.  However, that does not happen in real life.  In actuality, Herd immunity can vary from group to group, and subpopulation to subpopulation.  Once such real-world variations in density and demographics are accounted for, the mathematical estimates for herd immunity fall. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/health/coronavirus-herd-immunity.html

Your somewhat snarky remark inferring that I'm plagiarizing does not diminish the information I provided.  People rarely read links so I provided the salient information...but thanks for providing the links.  I agree I should have provided them. 

Edited June 4, 2021 by WaveHunter

[ChipButty]

2 minutes ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

Oh please....don't even joke about such things......For anyone that has lived here for a while THOSE kind of situations come up more often than they should.....the umpteenth copy of my passport that gets put in the filing cabinet along with the other 55 copies of my passport at immigration.....The office lady that swears you dont need a workpermit at this bank to open a bank account....yes she 'checked'....then after sitting there for 45 mins....you get the picture. 

 

A friend who went for a jab was sat there for over 2 hours then got called to sit in another area only to wait another hour, so you can say over 3 hours just to get a jab and this place want to open July 1st

[248900_1469958220]

4 minutes ago, ChipButty said:

A friend who went for a jab was sat there for over 2 hours then got called to sit in another area only to wait another hour, so you can say over 3 hours just to get a jab and this place want to open July 1st

Yeah sure...the whole place will be open and booming by July 1st.....Nana will be overflowing, Phuket bustling, Chiang Mai 'simply divine' , the girls of Issaan will be dancing in the streets, elephant tours trampling, coconut juice slurped. big booby beer gardens buzzing......come July 1st...

Edited June 4, 2021 by 248900_1469958220

[placnx]

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I sure agree with this being a long road with many twists and turns!  My point is only that the actual percentage number for herd immunity threshold is unknown becuase it is only a hypothetical mathematical model that can determine it, which does not account for a real life situation. 

 

The number could be as high as 85% if you take into account the increased transmissibility of present variants, or new ones that may be on the horizon.

 

On the other hand it could be as low as 50% when you take into account real-world demographics since the typical calculations for the herd immunity threshold assume that each community member has the same susceptibility to the virus and mix randomly with everyone else in the community, which actually does not happen in real life.

 

In actuality, Herd immunity can vary from group to group, and subpopulation to subpopulation.  Once such real-world variations in density and demographics are accounted for, the mathematical estimates for herd immunity fall. 

 

The point is...there is really no way to determine herd immunity threshold during an ongoing pandemic.  It can only be determined from historical perspective after the pandemic has actually ended.

We have some clues about herd immunity by observing cases of spread. Basically if one person goes out into a superspreader event, they can then infect people in their residential unit, workplace, who are not vaccinated. This can be true of Third World, but also developed countries when bars, churches, and workplaces have significant numbers of unvaccinated.

 

In the US, wait and see for a few weeks how the situation develops, since vaccination is at 50% threshold (but much lower in some southern states), and now that mask conditions are relaxed and summer travel is starting.

 

[scorecard]

6 hours ago, Smithson said:

It's too soon, they need to wait for it to be a serious problem first. 

 

Yep, anticipation is not taught by parents or any where/any level in the entire education system, and a very large % of Thais have never observed anticipation in daily/business life and that includes many senior business executives.

 

Or to put it simply 'no plan B'.

[Colabamumbai]

Ban Bung Thesabaan told me today, vaccine only for Thais, go to private hospital. You'd think us plus 70 f_____ would be first in line. 

[Venom]

Day late and a baht short.

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

As in last year study that you linked:

 

"Assuming no population immunity and that all individuals are equally susceptible and equally infectious, the herd immunity threshold for SARS-CoV-2 would be expected to range between 50% and 67% in the absence of any interventions."

 

This was before variants and also assuming it was a 100% efficacy vaccine which they are not.

 

The UK has over 50% of of its population fully vaccinated and they are now having an uptick.

 

To say 50% is enough is misleading and reckless.

Again, I did not say it was 50%!  I merely said that well vetted research argues that it could wind up being that low (or could actually be much higher than 70%.  The point I'm making is that nobody can know for sure until after the pandemic has ended.

 

It is NOT "misleading or reckless" for researchers to point out potential threshold ranges under real world conditions becuase what they are really defining is real-world conditions that can change the mathematical modeling that defines an arbitrary threshold like 70%. 

 

What is "misleading and reckless" is to fiercely  adhere to some arbitrary number such as 70% without any science to back it up.  Real world variants can raise that mathematical threshold far above 70%, but other factors like community population density differences can lower it.

 

It may be higher or it may be lower. Whatever it turns out to be is really of no importance right now.  All that's important is continuing to vaccinate until the R-naught is reached, and the spread is contained.

 

Once that happens, you'll know exactly what the herd immunity threshold is.  Until then, trying to define it is completely meaningless and unproductive.

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by WaveHunter

[Uroller]

This calls for all hands on deck????

[1duckyboy]

It seems highly unlikely millions of vaccine doses will suddenly appear. The folks in charge know there is a shortage of qualified jabbers so they slowed the flow of vaccine to a trickle and have delayed/postponed vaccination appointments. Right?

[Thingamabob]

8 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Apparently they needed to wait until D day to determine this. What a plan they have...Anutin needs to go...as well as the Czar.

Thai friends keep on telling me Anutin will most likely be the next PM. Oh dear....

[JamieM]

8 hours ago, Smithson said:

wait for it to be a serious problem first. 

no pobham

[GBW]

8 hours ago, Smithson said:

I hope they've got extra syringes on the shopping list

Ive just checked on Lazada,  no worries ????

[Bkk Brian]

15 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Again, I did not say it was 50%!  I merely said that well vetted research argues that it could be that low.  It is NOT "misleading or reckless" for researchers to point out potential threshold ranges under real world conditions.  What is "misleading and reckless" is to fiercely  adhere to some arbitrary number such as 70% without any science to back it up.

 

It may be higher or it may be lower. Whatever it turns out to be is really of no importance right now.  All that's important is continuing to vaccinate until the R-naught is reached, and the spread is contained.

 

Once that happens, you'll know exactly what the herd immunity threshold is.  Until then, trying to define it is completely meaningless and unproductive.

 

 

 

 

Well vetted research does not say it could be as low as 50% in the latest studies and yes it is reckless to suggest it is now.

 

The UK has proved that point and the research you pointed to was carried out last year before variants and on an assumption that the vaccine had 100% efficacy.

 

How more many studies would you like to point this out to you?

Edited June 4, 2021 by Bkk Brian

[WaveHunter]

29 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

Well vetted research does not say it could be as low as 50% in the latest studies and yes it is reckless to suggest it is now.

 

The UK has proved that point and the research you pointed to was carried out last year before variants and on an assumption that the vaccine had 100% efficacy.

 

How more many studies would you like to point this out to you?

This is becoming a pointless debate since you've obviously made up your mind, and have either not read, or just fail to understand the significance of the JAMA article I linked.

 

For the final time, I am not saying I believe herd immunity threshold will be anywhere close to 50%, and will probably be higher once it is finally known (after the pandemic has ended).  I only said that some researchers have claimed it could be significantly different than mathematical models are indicating since those models do not take into account "real world" human variables or future changes of the virus (variants).

 

The whole point of their work was to show that the mathematical modeling that leads to such "specific" threshold numbers such as "70%" are only hypothetical approximations that, in the real world, are essentially meaningless

 

These studies were conducted by world-class researchers who know a hell of a lot more about epidemiology than you or I, their work has been peer-reviewed and appears in prestigious medical and scientific journals, so unless you have similar credentials yourself, I think you have some nerve to dismiss the credibility of their work, and call it "misleading or reckless".

 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by WaveHunter

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, WaveHunter said:

This is becoming a pointless debate since you've obviously made up your mind, and have either not read, or fail to understand the JAMA article I linked.

 

For the final time, I am not saying I believe herd immunity threshold will be anywhere close to 50%, and will probably be higher once it is finally known (after the pandemic has ended).  I only said that some researchers have claimed it could be 50% based on their modeling studies. 

 

The studies were conducted by researchers who know a hell of a lot more about epidemiology than you or I, their work has been peer-reviewed and appears in prestigious medical and scientific journals, so unless you have similar credentials yourself, I think you have some nerve to dismiss the credibility of their work.

Science changes, yes it was an article you quoted, not a study and not peer reviewed. In addition an old one from last year that did not take into account variants and was under the assumption the the vaccine had 100% efficacy. What is it about this you do not understand? When evidence changes science also changes.

 

Again reckless to suggest 50% is enough now when it clearly is not, in real world vaccinations happening now.

 

Try this from 2 months ago.

 

New variants change the herd-immunity equation

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2

[WaveHunter]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Science changes, yes it was an article you quoted, not a study and not peer reviewed. In addition an old one from last year that did not take into account variants and was under the assumption the the vaccine had 100% efficacy. What is it about this you do not understand? When evidence changes science also changes.

 

Again reckless to suggest 50% is enough now when it clearly is not, in real world vaccinations happening now.

 

Try this from 2 months ago.

 

New variants change the herd-immunity equation

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2

You're not listening to what I say AT ALL, and you fail to understand the significance of the JAMA article.  Even though it was written last October, what was significant about it (what you fail to understand) is still valid. , so I think we are done here.

Edited June 4, 2021 by WaveHunter

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, WaveHunter said:

You're not listening to what I say AT ALL, and you fail to understand the significance of the JAMA article, so I think we are done here.

Its an old article that you keep quoting stay up to date you may get it then

[WaveHunter]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Its an old article that you keep quoting stay up to date you may get it then

Obviously you did not read the article or you'd understand that the significance of what was said has not changed.  It's not about the damn numbers or what more recent studies indicate about threshold numbers, it's about the validity of even using herd immunity thresholds as a predictor during an ongoing pandemic!  If you ACTUALLY read the article, we wouldn't even be having this silly discussion. 

Edited June 4, 2021 by WaveHunter

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

 

In other words, it is just as wrong to say it is 70% as it is to say it is 50% or any other number becuase these numbers are only the result of a hypothetical mathematical modem, and do not reflect what actually happens in the real world.

 

 

Bravo WaveHunter! Mathematical modelling is just use of symbols. The use of mathematical modelling is fraught with danger because it assumes that all parametres are fed into the model to make it accurate. As Neil Ferguson found out, and now admits, often those parametres are not known. What happens in the real world is more complex than any mathematical model can portray, or else mathematical modellers would all be stock market billlionaires. I could not agree more with what you just wrote there.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Logosone

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, WaveHunter said:

Obviously you did not read the article or you'd understand that the significance of what was said has not changed.  It's not about the damn numbers or what more recent studies indicate about threshold numbers, it's about the validity of using herd immunity thresholds as a predictor during an ongoing pandemic!  If you ACTUALLY read the article, we wouldn't even be having this silly discussion. 

I read it and even quoted from it. Its estimate of 50 herd immunity is now defunct.

[WaveHunter]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Bravo WaveHunter! Mathematical modelling is just use of symbols. The use of mathematical modelling is fraught with danger because it assumes that all parametres are fed into the model to make it accurate. As Neil Ferguson found out, and now admits, often those parametres are not known. What happens in the real world is more complex than any mathematical model can portray, or else mathematical modellers would all be stock market billlionaires. I could agree more with what you just wrote there.

Thanks for being a voice of reason and understanding in an otherwise fruitless debate about the validity of mathematical modelling, which the other member here seems unable to appreciate.

Edited June 4, 2021 by WaveHunter