Opinion | Herd Immunity Is Risky

Now that we have been in the COVID-19 pandemic for six months world wide, there is much to learn about the varied approaches countries have taken. The latest in a series of articles on the pandemic by Tomas Pueyo analyses the herd immunity approach that Sweden has explicitly taken. Has it worked? No matter, If you measure success by control of the disease more than three months from its takeoff in Sweden, or by deaths, or by the economic impact, according to the author, this approach which much of the United States seems to have unwittingly taken, is not working out so well.

As with his previous articles that I discussed in March explaining the “Hammer and the Dance," this article is worth the read—and it's packed with charts for every nation for data nerds so you can draw your own conclusions. The good news as Sweden is beginning to see, it is still not too late to alter course. Here is Mr. Pueyo’s introduction to the article "Coronavirus: Should We Aim for Herd Immunity Like Sweden?"

“The US is in the same path as Sweden, which has been following a coronavirus strategy that some call herd immunity: They think you can't stop the virus. It can only be stopped once ~60% of the population has been infected. Just flatten the curve enough to preserve the healthcare system. As a result, a lot of their economy has remained open. 

Unfortunately, many have been infected and died. But there are a few surprises: They were hoping to be close to that 60% by now. How close are they? And how is its economy faring compared to other countries? 

In this article, I answer this and many other questions about Sweden, herd immunity, and the lessons for other countries like the US.”

Kurt Krumperman is retired from a lifelong career in Emergency Medical Services and has a PhD in Health Care Public Policy.