David Robertson is a doctoral candidate in the Program in the History of Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. He is affiliated with the project "Rethinking Science and Public Participation" (PI: Bruno J. Strasser), University of Geneva, Switzerland.
Am J Public Health. 2021 Aug;111(8):1473-1480. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2021.306264. Epub 2021 Jun 10.
This article explores a tension at the core of the concept of herd immunity that has been overlooked in public and scientific discussions-namely: how can immunity, a phenomenon of individual biological defenses, be made relevant to populations? How can collectives be considered "immune"? Over the course of more than a century of use of the term, scientists have developed many different understandings of the concept in response to this inherent tension. Originating among veterinary scientists in the United States in the late 19th century, the concept was adopted by British scientists researching human infectious disease by the early 1920s. It soon became a staple concept for epidemiologists interested in disease ecology, helping to articulate the population dynamics of diseases such as diphtheria and influenza. Finally, though more traditional understandings of the concept remained in scientific use, in the era after World War II, it increasingly came to signal the objective and outcome of mass vaccination. Recognizing the complexity of scientific efforts to resolve the paradox of herd immunity may help us consider the best distribution of immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
本文探讨了群体免疫概念核心中一个被公众和科学界讨论忽视的紧张关系,即:个体生物防御的现象——免疫力,如何与人群相关?如何将集体视为“免疫”?在该术语使用的一个多世纪中,科学家们为了应对这种内在的紧张关系,对这一概念产生了许多不同的理解。这一概念起源于 19 世纪末美国的兽医科学家,20 世纪 20 年代初,英国研究人类传染病的科学家开始采用这一概念。它很快成为对疾病生态学感兴趣的流行病学家的一个主要概念,有助于阐明白喉和流感等疾病的人群动态。尽管更传统的概念在科学上仍在使用,但在第二次世界大战后的时代,它越来越成为大规模接种疫苗的目标和结果的信号。认识到科学界为解决群体免疫悖论所做的努力的复杂性,可能有助于我们考虑最佳的严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2(SARS-CoV-2)免疫力分配。