• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Is COVID strategy moving towards herd-immunity?!

North_Sky

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
1,252
Likes
686
Location
Kha Nada
The number of reported cases never equals the true number of cases.
Very true; in the USA a good rule of scientific analysis is to multiply the actual number of reported cases by ten.

* The number of COVID-19 related deaths in the USA? I would add approximately 25-30%

** In the US there's no heard immunity strategy, none. The strategy is working relentlessly on vaccine(s). Because self-distancing and mask wearing is not part of American culture. Americans, I believe, are slow to adapt to a new lifestyle.
 

North_Sky

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
1,252
Likes
686
Location
Kha Nada
The normal annual death rate in most western countries is around 1%. The total (attributed) covid-19 deaths to date in the UK is about 46,000, or 8% of the annual rate. It looks like a lot because 90% of those extra deaths occurred in April and May. At the peak, the daily death rate was nearly twice the normal. Had the extra deaths been spread over a year, nobody but the statisticians would have even noticed. Of course, without the lockdown, there's no telling how bad it might have got.
The keyword in your post ... "lockdown".
 

North_Sky

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
1,252
Likes
686
Location
Kha Nada
We can assume that virtually all deaths, regardless of cause, are registered. Comparing weekly death rates to the average over a few previous years thus gives a good measure of the severity of the epidemic. Excess deaths will show up whether or not they were correctly attributed.
I think this COVID-19 pandemic is not just about deaths...it's about universal health and wealth.
 

scott wurcer

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,009
Likes
1,565
Americans, I believe, are slow to adapt to a new lifestyle.
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.
 

phoenixdogfan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
558
Likes
473
Agreed that neither reported deaths nor cases are true numbers. But you estimation assumes that there are no other factors that reduce R0 such as social/physical distancing.
If you're shooting for herd immunity, you're not looking to social distance-- you're looking to infect as many as possible as soon as possible, pay the butcher's bill, and get the whole thing over and done with.

My point is that is a horrific idea in the same league with The Final Solution if it's even possible.
 

Thomas_A

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
581
Likes
314
If you're shooting for herd immunity, you're not looking to social distance-- you're looking to infect as many as possible as soon as possible, pay the butcher's bill, and get the whole thing over and done with.

My point is that is a horrific idea in the same league with The Final Solution if it's even possible.
And my point is that that immunity is one part of the equation for R0. 60-70 % infected is based on a certain basic R0. This number, again, will depend on many other factors of a population - population density, social habits, etc, as well as changes in habits happening during an epidemic. So estimation of deaths by just calculating using basic R0 will not give a true answer. And the only way to "shoot" for herd immunity is to use vaccination.
 

phoenixdogfan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
558
Likes
473
In the USA; 160,000 Coronavirus related deaths by Tuesday morning coming up.

But the number of deaths is very relative; the number of infected people is a better representation. And we know by know that many survivors are living with affected organs for pretty much the rest of their lives ... lungs, heart, liver, veins, blood circulation, blood cloth, brain cells, etc., etc., etc.

This virus is no picnic, and no one is immune, including young kids.
Scientists are not talking anymore about herd immunity; they're talking about self distancing, wearing masks, washing hands, good hygiene, good common sense, no large gatherings, protection, safety, no risk, sacrifices, cooling off, adapting, ... a new secured life out of our usual habits.

The numbers today are nowhere near tomorrow's numbers and affected people ...
Only us can decide of tomorrow's numbers and the number of infected/affected people...nobody else.
And well they should be talking about things like wearing masks and social distancing, and getting vaccines. The idea that anyone can decide that herd immunity is a good idea, and the butcher bill is an acceptable price to pay--well, that is an authority that has not been and can never be conferred on anyone in government or without. And any government or governement official that decides that a "1 percent" of the population death rate acceptable to sustain a certain level of economic activity and acts on it, needs to be brought to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity for putting their Social Darwinist ideology into practice.
 

Putter

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Messages
241
Likes
355
Location
Albany, NY USA
And well they should be talking about things like wearing masks and social distancing, and getting vaccines. The idea that anyone can decide that herd immunity is a good idea, and the butcher bill is an acceptable price to pay--well, that is an authority that has not been and can never be conferred on anyone in government or without. And any government or governement official that decides that a "1 percent" of the population death rate acceptable to sustain a certain level of economic activity and acts on it, needs to be brought to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity for putting their Social Darwinist ideology into practice.
I would add 0.1%, basically the role of government IMO is the 'general welfare' which includes reducing the number of preventable deaths. This may be political, but there does seem to be a correlation between the quality of leaders in various countries and the number of Covid deaths. (No I won't name names.)
 

maxxevv

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
1,615
Likes
1,578
She talks about how the mortality rate is lower than was 'expected' from a novel virus because of varying degrees of immune response due to other corona viruses. The problem I have with this is 17.5 million cases and 680,000 deaths so far (translates to about 0.4% mortality) with no end in sight until we have vaccines and/or treatments. It's all very nice for a theoretical epidemiologist to say that deaths are a lower percentage than expected. She might have a different reaction if one of her family died from it or god forbid her.
Your mathematics have failed you. Its 3.8% mortality versus infection, not 0.4%.
 
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
72
Likes
94
Location
Belgium
And any government or governement official that decides that a "1 percent" of the population death rate acceptable to sustain a certain level of economic activity and acts on it, needs to be brought to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity for putting their Social Darwinist ideology into practice.
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. Lock down kills as well, so for it to be logically justified it must prevent deaths, not just postpone them.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
1,731
Likes
3,603
Location
Hampshire
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. Lock down kills as well, so for it to be logically justified it must prevent deaths, not just postpone them.
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.
 

maxxevv

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
1,615
Likes
1,578
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. Lock down kills as well, so for it to be logically justified it must prevent deaths, not just postpone them.
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" ??
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
1,731
Likes
3,603
Location
Hampshire
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" ??
If they're going to die within a year regardless, it's not justifiable to make millions jobless only to postpone the inevitable a few months. Also don't forget that extreme lockdown measures also kill people. Are you ok with trading someone's life for a few months of your own?

Oh, and your 10% figure is ludicrous unless all your family and friends are already at death's door.
 

maxxevv

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
1,615
Likes
1,578
If they're going to die within a year regardless, it's not justifiable to make millions jobless only to postpone the inevitable a few months. Also don't forget that extreme lockdown measures also kill people. Are you ok with trading someone's life for a few months of your own?

Oh, and your 10% figure is ludicrous unless all your family and friends are already at death's door.
Guess you don't quite get the idea that the virus mutates, and mutates quite rapidly as we see multiple identifiable strains from different continents in the space of 6~7 months.

As I explained in my previous reply to the idea of herd immunity, 70% population infection rates that needs to be achieved is NOT a 1 off scenario . Simply because the virus is not a stable one. You need to sustain that 70% rate multiple times for multiple strains of the same virus for herd immunity to be effective in shutting them out.

When you have 3~4% mortality (the current world average) for 70% of the population, you are talking about 2.1~2.8% mortality rates over the entire population. How many times do you need to achieve that 70% infection rates before you shut off all the different strains that have emerged so far? 3 times ? 4 ? 5 times ? When you multiply that 2.1~2.8% by 3~5 times what do you get ? You will get to that 10% number and most likely exceed it.

If people dying in huge numbers should be an eventuality, we should all stop doing anything productive and just wait to die then, since a huge, extinction level meteorite or extinction level event will hit Earth every 200 millions years or so.
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2019
Messages
13
Likes
9
Sorry just joined the thread so not aware of the earlier posts but the last two pages, locked down and nothing better to do ...

Am listening to "This One's for Him, A Tribute to Guy Clark" sensational musicianship from a large number of his friends, great live recording

I have not heard of any one being immune at this point in time, apparently infected people who have mild symptoms have been re-infected and then been seriously ill the second time. The seriously ill, of course, don't get the opportunity of re-infection.

Being just one of the herd I would like the other herd guy (or gal, lets not be sexist) to get it,
and as mansr who said "Are you ok with trading someone's life for a few months of your own?"
my reply is yes, if you or anyone else is offering, then yes I would be happy to take a few extra months; always music to listen to,
but I don't believe you are offering and you were vague about the terms of the trade,
you have simply reduced peoples' lives to the level of a statistic; which it is easy to do when its not your life.

I have noted the statistics available are wild, no convergence or a predictable pattern
and experts can only really be experts in 10 to 20 years time after an event not during it
I cant recall if it was herd immunity that stopped the bubonic plague or the cholera outbreaks
They tried a number of popular remedies that were ineffective but often fatal, however they didn't know about bleach or that hydroxyq.. stuff
It was probably easier to social distance when most of your neighbours were dead.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
1,731
Likes
3,603
Location
Hampshire
Guess you don't quite get the idea that the virus mutates, and mutates quite rapidly as we see multiple identifiable strains from different continents in the space of 6~7 months.
This virus isn't mutating any more than viruses do in general. So far, none of the identified strains differ enough to affect immunity.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
1,731
Likes
3,603
Location
Hampshire
Being just one of the herd I would like the other herd guy (or gal, lets not be sexist) to get it,
and as mansr who said "Are you ok with trading someone's life for a few months of your own?"
my reply is yes, if you or anyone else is offering, then yes I would be happy to take a few extra months; always music to listen to,
but I don't believe you are offering and you were vague about the terms of the trade,
you have simply reduced peoples' lives to the level of a statistic; which it is easy to do when its not your life.
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.
 
Top Bottom