Herd immunity, COVID-19 and vaccination: some propositions (WP-2021-024)

The differences being that the proponents of the declaration indicate that a wait for a safe vaccination or administering one with emergency use authorization will have a greater adverse impact on lives and livelihood and therefore herd immunity through natural infection along with focused protection is better while the proponents of the memorandum are of the view that opening up without controls. [...] Second, the basis of an intervention (particularly, when it is claimed to be the substantive one) should be such that the efficacy of direct impact is greater than the threshold level, ? ? > ? , as in proposition 2. [...] Nevertheless, the moot point is that if additional positive impact exists then the proportion of the population to whom the intervention has to be administered to reach the base threshold level will not only be ? lower than but it can also be less than the base threshold level, ? , as indicated in ? ? ? proposition 3. [...] While acknowledging the same, the moot point that we want to make is that in all possible situations the goal for the intervention need not be the entire population. [...] Second, if there is only one intervention then the efficacy of that that intervention should be greater than the threshold level, as anything less would mean that we have to reach out to the entire population and if efficacy is unity then the intervention ought to reach out to the proportion of people that is equivalent to the threshold level.