Herd immunity, second wave ... forget the jargon; this is what you need to know

play article
Subscribers can listen to this article
’n Grafiese voorstelling van die virus wat Covid-19 veroorsaak.  Foto: iStock
’n Grafiese voorstelling van die virus wat Covid-19 veroorsaak. Foto: iStock


There is much talk in South Africa about a second wave of Covid-19. In Europe, it is much more than talk, with Covid-19 diagnoses, hospital admissions, deaths and restrictions on the rise.

Studies looking for antibodies in community surveys suggest that, in most of Europe and North America, a far smaller proportion of people have Covid antibodies than what we see in developing world settings such as India and Africa, including South Africa.

This implies that there is currently more immunity here and people have been wondering out loud whether we have sufficient herd immunity to avoid our own second wave, and for how long.

There is a lot of jargon and technical discourse on such questions, framed in the language of mathematics and “dynamical modelling”.

This discourse involves analysing how things work in “model worlds”, where the rules are fully known and analysable – because we invent or declare the rules ourselves.

Hopefully, we do this in a way that makes it possible to draw useful parallels between our model worlds and the real world. For the purposes of understanding how to brace for that possible second wave of Covid-19, this discourse is obscure, technically inaccessible to most people and largely irrelevant.

We can, however, unpack the key concepts in accessible ways that people will hopefully find useful.

Herd vs individual

First, what is non-herd, or individual, immunity?

To say I am immune to measles or Covid-19 is to say that I am not at risk of being infected, even if I come into contact with sources of infection.

Do I claim immunity by carefully dodging the really infectious exposures, or do I need to be able to avoid infection even if I am literally thrust into a crowd of people deliberately spluttering on me for hours on end? Precisely what am I immune to, and under what circumstances, can be tricky to define.

Let’s say I get a dose of a vaccine, and then avoid infection for two years, after which I get infected. Did I have this thing called immunity which I subsequently lost?

Read: The slow motion race for a TB vaccine

Was I merely lucky to avoid infectious exposures for two years, even though the vaccine did nothing for me, or did I have partial immunity all along, but less and less over time, and eventually my number came up?

The idea that someone may have or lack immunity is not absurd, but it is slippery.
Alex Welte

The flip side of immunity is susceptibility, and being susceptible does not mean one is guaranteed to be infected if some minimal exposure occurs. The idea that someone may have or lack immunity is not absurd, but it is slippery. 

Physicists and engineers talk of conductors and resistors.

A high resistance means a low conductance, and vice versa, but every part of a simple electrical circuit has both a resistance and a conductance (the one implies the other) and we even have a way of attaching numerical values to these properties – just like a rod has a length, a width and a mass.

Humans are on some continuum from highly susceptible to highly immune, but it is not obvious that we can summarise this with a single number.

Collective immunity

Now, is there a sensible way to talk about collective immunity, or collective susceptibility? In fact, there are many ways we could try to define such a thing.

We could just try to recycle some definition of individual immunity and ask how many in, or what proportion of, a population have it.

This would not help us much, because it tells us nothing about who has the immunity and what various people in the population do by interacting with each other, and how this contributes to the outbreak growing or receding.

Read: Covid-19 report 7: Life-saving drug is good news but no time to pop champagne

We can try to define collective susceptibility in a more emergent rather than microscopic way, so it directly captures something about the tendency for infections to spread. Let us try.

We are stuck for the foreseeable future with working on our collective immunity mainly through tolerable habits of infection control
Alex Welte

The collective susceptibility of a population, at some stage of an epidemic, is the average number of new infections that are expected to be produced by any one currently infected individual.

This sounds potentially useful – and it even comes directly with a numerical value that is easy to interpret. If collective susceptibility is greater than one, we will see an increase in cases.

If it is less than one, we will see a decline in cases. But wait – this is old hat. This is what we have been reading about for months in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic – the “R number”, short for “reproductive number”.

Public health agencies, ministerial advisory committees and the like have been discussing this reproductive number, trying to estimate it from such data as we have available, and trying to figure out how to bring it below one by encouraging the use of masks, decreased social contact and hand-washing, among other precautions. Hopefully a safe and effective vaccine is also coming.

No one has yet seriously suggested that the reproductive number can be stuck on to a country, a city or even a neighbourhood like a vintage or cultivar label can be stuck on to a bottle of wine.

Collective susceptibility, and its inverse, collective immunity, are constantly changing. In colder weather, people spend more time indoors. Under lockdown, they encounter few people outside their families.

Depending on rules and norms, people adopt various levels of mask wearing and hand sanitising and, crucially, as the case counts grow and people recover, many people get individual immunity, at least for a while.

It is all fluid. Daily case counts jump around like stock prices, but, broadly, they slowly go up and down as we ride the ripples and waves of the epidemic.

Herd immunity

So what is herd immunity then? It is essentially the state of affairs when collective susceptibility, also known as the reproductive number, is less than one.

In a population that currently has some infections, to say that there is herd immunity is just a sophisticated way of saying that infections are on the decline. In a population where there are currently no infections, saying that there is herd immunity expresses that you would expect any new outbreak to fizzle out.

But would you replace your speedometer with a gauge that just tells you whether you are above or below the speed limit, or do you like to know the actual speed?

Read: What does herd immunity mean for South Africa?

Would you replace a thermometer with a device that simply said whether it was hot or cold, or do you like to know the temperature?

When we have plausible estimates of the reproductive number, or collective susceptibility/immunity, which vary smoothly over a range of values, we do not make progress by forgetting the actual number and just recalling whether it is larger or smaller than one.

It matters greatly whether it is one point two or five; and it matters greatly what we are currently doing to manage collective susceptibility, and what cards we still have left to play.

Read: As Covid-19 numbers fall, much remains uncertain

In short – the Covid-19 pandemic is coming and going in ripples and waves, and perhaps there are even features that look like tides.

We can all try to be reasonably aware of whether things are getting better or worse, and how rapidly – and we can all try to be reasonable in how careful we are to reduce the spread of infections while still getting on with our lives and livelihoods.

The authorities should also be attentive and reasonable. There is, however, not only little point or comfort in herd immunity, there is in fact very little meaning in it beyond taking a closer look at what we should all be keeping a close eye on in any case.

we are stuck for the foreseeable future with working on our collective immunity mainly through tolerable habits of infection control
Alex Welte

How then to face the imminent future of the Covid-19 pandemic? Higher proportions of people with detectable antibodies must mean higher levels of collective immunity – all other things being the same. But in what sense are all other things the same? Indeed, to what extent are all other things even defined and knowable?

While it is not wrong to hope that we can breathe a little between waves, we cannot predict much and we must expect further swells.

Alas, an end to the pandemic requires the interplay of tolerable/sustainable precautionary habits and sufficiently widespread individual immunity. Unfortunately we don’t know how durable individual immunity really is, after either infection or the use of some vaccine.

So, we are stuck for the foreseeable future with working on our collective immunity mainly through tolerable habits of infection control.

An eye on estimates of the reproductive number gives us about as much hard information as we can hope to have about what we could possibly mean by collective immunity.

*Welte is research professor at, and the former director of, the department of science and innovation National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence in Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis, known as SACEMA, at Stellenbosch University

*This article was first published in Spotlight– health journalism in the public interest 


Delivering the 

news you need

+27 11 713 9001
69 Kingsway Rd, Auckland Park
We live in a world where facts and fiction get blurred
In times of uncertainty you need journalism you can trust. For only R75 per month, you have access to a world of in-depth analyses, investigative journalism, top opinions and a range of features. Journalism strengthens democracy. Invest in the future today.
Subscribe to News24


Read the digital editions of City Press here.
Read now
Voting Booth
Tourism Minister Lindiwe Sisulu’s comments on the Constitution and the judiciary has been termed an “extraordinary attack” that is “dangerous and regressive”. What are your thoughts?
Please select an option Oops! Something went wrong, please try again later.
She’s within her rights
10% - 57 votes
It’s all politics
26% - 147 votes
It was irresponsible
63% - 351 votes