According to this New York Times article, people might have to continue wearing a mask for several more years when they go to the grocery store and other places.

New York Times

Is herd immunity unreachable?

Our colleague Apoorva Mandavilli has been asking scientists and public health experts when the U.S. might reach herd immunity — the threshold when enough people would be protected from the coronavirus, via vaccines or antibodies, that we could effectively be rid of it.

What she heard back was stark: Herd immunity is not attainable, at least not in the near future, and perhaps not ever.

“It was kind of shocking,” Apoorva told us. “Because nobody seemed to have communicated that to the public. We’re all still talking about herd immunity, but the thinking had changed.”

Experts now think the virus will most likely become a manageable but persistent threat that will circulate in the U.S. for years to come, hospitalizing and killing at least a small number of people.

There are two main developments that led experts to this growing consensus. The coronavirus is changing rapidly, giving rise to new variants that are much more contagious. And vaccinations are not moving fast enough.

Early on in the pandemic, the target herd immunity threshold was thought to be 60 to 70 percent of the population. But the more contagious variants pushed that number up to at least 80 percent — and polls show that about 30 percent of Americans are hesitant to get vaccinated. And that does not even begin to address the fact that only a tiny proportion of the world has been vaccinated thus far.

“Even if the vast majority of Americans are vaccinated, it may not matter if, elsewhere in the world, a variant emerges that can evade the immune system,” Apoorva said. “We are all in this together, so we will never be truly be rid of this virus till the whole world is protected.”

But reaching herd immunity may not matter in the end. Previously scientists thought that the only way to get rid of the virus or to make it more manageable was to reach that lofty number, until we found out just how “amazingly good the vaccines are,” Apporva said. “They changed the calculus completely.”

Over the long term — a generation or two — the goal would be to protect the vulnerable and transition the virus to become more like its cousins that cause common colds.

“Really the writing was on the wall the entire time,” Apoorva said. “Some scientists have been saying that the long-term outcome of the virus is going to be an annoying common cold, which basically means that we won’t get to herd immunity. So it’s really just a shift in thinking, but it doesn’t mean we should despair.”

It also shouldn’t change our behavior, Apoorva added: “Our goal is still to vaccinate as many people as possible.”

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

A comment someone wrote:

European American
Brussels

As a medical doctor, in my view, the main issue is not whether herd immunity is attainable or not. Viruses come and go. They have been part of the natural human environment for hundreds of millennia. The main issue is what to do about pandemics like this one. After a year of lockdowns in many states and countries all over the world, the science is clear: There is no evidence that blanket lockdowns reduce death rates. Comparable jurisdictions with different lockdown policies experienced similar death rates per capita. This is the only way doctors evaluate the effectiveness of a drug or vaccine or a public-health intervention: By comparing large groups of similar people who are treated differently. Therefore, instead of worrying about herd immunity, next time around, policy makers need to focus only on the vulnerable groups and let the young and healthy populations meet the pathogen. This would be a more effective strategy, because it won't hurt the economy, which ultimately supports the health care system. Instead of spending trillions to fix people's ruined livelihoods, the government should invest only some billions to support hospitals, nursing homes, etc.