• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Is COVID strategy moving towards herd-immunity?!

Status
Not open for further replies.

EB1000

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2020
Messages
484
Likes
579
Location
Israel
I have a feeling that no vaccine is effective, neither any herd immunity. This virus is like a cold virus, only much deadlier. You can get reinfected again and again until it kills you, if not now, in a decade or so, when you're immune system gets weakened as you age. I think this virus will wipe out 50% of the earth's population within a couple of decades. Maybe, we as humans don't deserve to live... This is what happens when humans abuse animals for food...
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,922
Not if you think those deaths are inevitable. If you consider that whatever we do the end result will be the same, that everyone will eventually be exposed (which is not an absurd hypothesis), than it makes sense to minimize the time.
If the hypothesis had some strong evidence...

You cannot use a hypothesis (absurd or not) to advance a policy that will definitely put a large population at risk - larger than with a limited but not very short term social distancing and masking with limited commerce - there is a considerable amount of avidence outside of the US that this helps bring R0 down considerably as opposed to any evidence that herd immunity is possible (except in two slums in the world where other variables such as age-stratification from lower life expectancy could be dominating assuming that the statistics were reliable).

Lock down kills as well, so for it to be logically justified it must prevent deaths, not just postpone them.
This is a very poor form of "both sides" argument without using a balance.

This is a risk-management situation not a perfect result situation. Some of the conditions that lie behind the anecdotal evidence (I must say it is hard to find much there) for lockdown induced death have other forms of acceptable risk management - financial help, mental health facilities, etc., that are good things to have even in normal conditions and so good to try for and much easier to achieve than overflowing medical care. Deaths from trying to achieve as-yet-unproven herd-immunity has no such risk mitigation factors - we do not even have the medical infrastructure necessary to save lives that would be lost otherwise in such a scenario.
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,922
What we have now is "non-emergency" medical procedures being postponed indefinitely in order to prevent spread of the virus. Some of those people who are having their treatments deferred will die before their appointment gets rescheduled, others will be living in agony for an extra year (or however long the delay ends up being). Is that an acceptable price for postponing another death by a couple of months?
Wow, quite a large distortion of logic there. Putting non-emergency in quotes is not going to make it an emergency argument. If anything people with emergency medical procedures are having difficulty in overflowing hospital condition where the spread is overwhelming the hospitals. Intentionally aiming for herd immunity will only make it worse. So by the same logic we should not be aiming for herd immunity at all unless we have the ability to build medical infrastructure large enough to not overflow and the collateral damage is acceptable. The latter is where I find the rationales lacking.
Given my age and general health condition (40, good), if I got the virus, the risk of me becoming critically ill or dying is extremely small. I am just as likely to get hit by a bus or die in some other way over the next year (that's what the stats say).
Even if the unsourced stats were true, your chances of being killed by a lock-down would be even less, so I don't get your logic.
It isn't about you then.
This is a risk I am willing to take. If I were not, I should logically be living in a bunker somewhere far away from anything remotely dangerous, since by not doing that I am already taking equally great risks.

Sometimes bad things happen and some people die. This is one of those times. Accept it and stop trying to play god.

Irrational fatalism which is more of a religion than science.

You are advocating a policy where the maximum risk is being taken (and involuntarily) by someone else not you.

The alternative hypothesis I have for advancing such arguments is

"My lifestyle is going to be crimped by a long-term lockdown even if does not kill me because (pick one) - I cannot have sex with whoever I choose easily/My 401k plan is down or stagnant so I am not going to have enoough money to take cruises in my retirement/I am an extrovert and a narcissist that cannot live without external validation/adulation, I have a business that is losing customers from a lockdown and so I will not be able to afford that hi-fi stack I was planning or paying for the private college my daughter has to go to, my political leaders are going to suffer with a lockdown, etc - so I am going to advocate for opening up because I can manage my risk of dying, solves the problems I have and going to rationalize with no proof that I am concerned about a large amount of other deaths to justify my needs which is not politically correct to say so".

I am not saying you are saying the above but I cannot distinguish between the arguments of the type you are making and the above for intent. How would you differentiate (and I don't mean by saying none of those specific examples above apply to you, they are representative samples of selfish interests) your argument from the above?
 
Last edited:

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,788
R0 is the R value (in the simple differential equation used for exponential popn. growth) that applies initially, here, when the entire host popn. is available (not protected by vaccination, etc.). At this time, the technically accurate parameter to use would be Rt.

Research published so far does show no particularly strong mutation rates or evolution based on selection.

However, the 2nd phrase in mansr's post w.r.t. immunity is unsupported.

There does seem to be an evolved strain with differences in the spike protein* allowing much faster spread.

* the things that stick out of the envelope and serve as the 'keys' that 'unlock' the cell's 'entry points' for infection
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
I think it a reasonable strategy might have been to shield those at high risk while letting the epidemic run its course in the general population. That would keep the healthcare services from being overwhelmed without crippling the entire economy for years to come. I am happy to accept the slight risk this would pose to me.
 

North_Sky

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
2,741
Likes
1,553
Location
Kha Nada
Today's news shows that Germany and France have joined this movement. I've noticed that some stores here have started to hire third party security services due to incidents over their employees trying to enforce masks. The bus driver incident in France is simply absurd.

You are very right monsieur Scott; Germany just last Friday protested for freedom.
Many Germans believe COVID-19 is a hoax.
Americans are not alone ... Brazil, France, ...
Good point.

* China and Singapore and South Korea and North Korea and Australia ... don't believe in herd immunity. They believe in wearing masks, social distancing and good hygiene.
...And lockdowns.

Me personally I wouldn't eat dogs, cats and bats and rats.
 

North_Sky

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
2,741
Likes
1,553
Location
Kha Nada
If we expect everybody to get it eventually, we should slow the progression to a rate that the healthcare system can cope with but no more.

Some expert epidemic scientists said that up to 70% of the world population could be infected eventually; not an unreasonable figure for a virus extremely contagious.
In the US just recently someone important said that any people vacationing in places of highly COVID-19 infected zones can presume that they have the Coronavirus. ...Deborah Birx, she said.

The strategy is to slow it down, to not overwhelm the healthcare system, hospitals, emergency rooms indeed. Plus, not to kill these front line warriors...nurses and doctors.
We need them, they are "essential" workers.

* It's now been seven months that scientists gathered data and they are still learning as we go ... and they'll learn more in the next seven months ... by March 1st, 2021.

** How long would it take to slow it down?
How long would it take till 70% of the world population contract it?
How long would it take to find a vaccine with say 30% efficiency...or slightly more?
How long till everyone get vaccinated...7.8 billion of us?
How long Coronavirus is permanently with us?
What comes after all those "How long"?
 
Last edited:

North_Sky

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
2,741
Likes
1,553
Location
Kha Nada
So you're will be perfectly fine if it hits and "martyrs" say 10% of your immediate family and friends ? Or even yourself for the "greater good" ??

When you're dead it doesn't matter anymore if you're fine or not.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
Some expert epidemic scientists said that 70% of the world population could be infected eventually; not an unreasonable figure for a virus extremely contagious.
It's not extremely contagious. Measles and norovirus are extremely contagious.

The strategy is to slow it down, to not overwhelm the healthcare system, hospitals, emergency rooms indeed. Plus, not to kill these front line warriors...nurses and doctors.
We need them, they are "essential" workers.
Agreed, but I believe that could be achieved with targeted measures less drastic than the blanket lockdowns currently being used. Sweden still exists, you know.

How long would it take till 70% of the world population contract it?
At the current rate, a few decades.

How long would it take to find a vaccine with say 30% efficiency...or slightly more?
With a little luck, another 6 months.
 

North_Sky

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
2,741
Likes
1,553
Location
Kha Nada
What we have now is "non-emergency" medical procedures being postponed indefinitely in order to prevent spread of the virus. Some of those people who are having their treatments deferred will die before their appointment gets rescheduled, others will be living in agony for an extra year (or however long the delay ends up being). Is that an acceptable price for postponing another death by a couple of months?

Given my age and general health condition (40, good), if I got the virus, the risk of me becoming critically ill or dying is extremely small. I am just as likely to get hit by a bus or die in some other way over the next year (that's what the stats say). This is a risk I am willing to take. If I were not, I should logically be living in a bunker somewhere far away from anything remotely dangerous, since by not doing that I am already taking equally great risks.

Sometimes bad things happen and some people die. This is one of those times. Accept it and stop trying to play god.

Some people younger than you, and healthy too, have died from that virulent virus.
Where you slept last night should be the place where you'll stay next ...

* Some young people died from a horrifying death ... infected by Coronavirus.
Others are still fine, today.

** We are approaching 700,000 deaths worldwide.
In the US alone some experts predict 230,000 deaths by November; me I put this figure @ a quarter million (250,000). ...Realistically speaking.

In Brazil they'll reach 100,000 deaths next week.

The Americas have more deaths than all the other world continents combined together; about 53% +
 
Last edited:

phoenixdogfan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,294
Likes
5,070
Location
Nashville
It's not extremely contagious. Measles and norovirus are extremely contagious.


Agreed, but I believe that could be achieved with targeted measures less drastic than the blanket lockdowns currently being used. Sweden still exists, you know.


At the current rate, a few decades.


With a little luck, another 6 months.
Have you volunteered yourself, and your entire family to be infected with Covid 19? It would certainly be nice to see you're walking the walk, and not just talking the talk with other people's lives.

And this kind of callous, casual, all-knowing moral depravity (we're just extending the 'old people lives' by a few months w blanket lockdowns, for example) reminds me of the kind of conversations Hermann Kahn of the Rand Institute used to have regarding waging and winning nuclear war. That callousness was treated with in two films--"Fail Safe" where Walter Matthau played the Khan figure at the beginning of the movie in the Washington Cocktail party scene, and, of course, Dr Strangelove where Peter Sellars played the eponymously named doctor himself. In neither case was the master social planner treated kindly. nor should he have been. After all, in both cases the planner was trafficking in something that didn;t belong to him--other people's lives.
 
Last edited:

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,765
Likes
3,703
Some people younger than you, and healthy too, have died from that virulent virus.
Where you slept last night should be the place where you'll stay next ...

* Some young people died from a horrifying death ... infected by Coronavirus.
Others are still fine, today.

** We are approaching 700,000 deaths worldwide.
In the US alone some experts predict 230,000 deaths by November; me I put this figure @ a quarter million (250,000). ...Realistically speaking.

In Brazil they'll reach 100,000 deaths next week.

The Americas have more deaths than all the other world continents put together...about 55%
If anything, this should quality as both "extremely contagious" and "extremely dangerous". It brought countries to their knees.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
If anything, this should quality as both "extremely contagious" and "extremely dangerous"
It is neither of those things. As I said, measles might reasonably be called extremely contagious, having an R0 of ~15. Smallpox and Ebola are extremely dangerous. Thankfully, hardly any diseases are both.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom