Oxford study: millions may have already built up coronavirus immunity

And my guess is that there are untold numbers of people who were sick in the US with the same symptoms, well before the Wuhan outbreak, were never tested or treated, and acquired immunity by surviving.

 

How is it that the Chinese were able to build 10 hospitals in 2 weeks? Yes, different cultures and different methods, at first glance superior to ours.

 

So instead of asking why the richest and most advanced country in history cannot provide adequate medical care to a small percentage of its population without placing draconian restrictions on freedom of movement, association, and commerce, you just accept the restrictions without question while lecturing skeptics condescendingly. Well done.

 

"Superior to ours", because we force animals ontop of each other in cages and then sell them as livestock. No, in no way is that barbaric society superior to our culture.

 

Sorry, I wasn't describing the way we raise animals to the Chinese method, I was comparing specifically the Chinese measures to our measures regarding public health. Not animal husbandry.

 

"Oh no, we'll have to choose who lives and dies." They do that EVERY DAY. On the other hand, food famine, crime and possible breakouts of violence(as has been theorized on other threads) are very real, unmitigated circumstances. It's like a bailout for the hospitals that endangers....everyone else.

But I'm happy that this happened in real time, when I was of the age of an adult and able to comprehend it so now I know why this is a bad idea for the future.

 

I'm curious to know how you feel about how we've handled it now? I know you began thinking we should not have shut everything down the way it's been done and then you changed your mind. Have your thoughts on it remained the same since then?

 

Well, my thoughts on it are straight forward(though the way I've worded it, before and after certainly gives confusion.) We have the health crisis of the Coronavirus, never once have I said it's not a crisis. It's just the proportion of crisis, and the next crisis that's coming up: The economic crisis of the response, and now the possible crime epidemic that the crisis might create.

These two crises are running shoulder to shoulder with each other, and are creating a domino effect. On their own, both crisis's are devastating to our way of life. Together, it's the greatest pinch the US has faced since the second world war.

To me, the difference is that one crisis was man created(the economic crisis). If we do accept that a higher death rate is unfortunately inevitable, but that herd immunity could possibly be acquired, that would be better in the short and long term then what we ultimately decided to do.

For individuals who can self-sustain, the current government plan isn't bad. For everyone else and for the system at large, it's a disaster.

I've since picked up on the strategy advocated by a few others: Mass testing for people with the virus, and to selectively put those who aren't infected/immunities back into the economic sector while protecting those who are infected and aren't immune. That kind of middle ground was probably always my preferred approach but as the other UK papers showed, that's a feasible tactic now.

 

No one's going to convince you how wrong you are. But when we eclipse the # of deaths of common flu even with the "draconian measures" and in shorter time span, you'll realize you were full of sh** all along.

 

Everything you said is hyperbole. We have not witness any of that. We have witnessed packing bodies in semi reefers. So lets work on the problem in front of us instead of working on exaggerated hypotheticals.

 

What are you talking about? Our government is telling people to stay home. The only people acting foolish is the hyperbole party happening right here.

 

Doesn't apply, because ALL nations - with a vast array of political models/cultures/states/economies etc - have done it at the same time. The most democratic, and the least democratic.

You simply cannot argue that it's a dangerous precedent in light of that. A precedent for who? Which Govt? Which society? Which culture? Which State? Some things are bigger than localised concerns.

 

EXACTLY!

Some people just don't grasp that. That's what this is all about.

Health professionals want to be able to continue to fix your child's compound fracture, or your carry out your father's bypass, or safely perform your mom's lumpectomy, etc etc. If COVID blows up, these other things won't get done. IOW, far more than just virus victims will die.

 

Are you suggesting that First Worlders are going to starve to death, like African children?

 

That is the reasoning. Too many people getting it at once, is the result of that.

 

That's a good plan. Germany is certifying those recovered so that they are free to return to work, care for the infected, and so forth. I suspect we'll do the same here.

Saw the following on Herd Immunity:

WHY A VACCINE WOULD BE NICE: Here’s Why Herd Immunity Won’t Save Us From The COVID-19 Pandemic.

Herd immunity without a vaccine is by definition not a preventative measure.​

Herd immunity is an epidemiological concept that describes the state where a population – usually of people – is sufficiently immune to a disease that the infection will not spread within that group. In other words, enough people can't get the disease – either through vaccination or natural immunity – that the people who are vulnerable are protected.

Mumps has a basic reproductive rate (R0) of 10-12, which means that in a population which is entirely susceptible – meaning no one is immune to the virus – every person who is infected will pass the disease on to 10-12 people.

For mumps, you need 92 percent of the population to be immune for the disease to stop spreading entirely. This is what's known as the herd immunity threshold. COVID-19 is, fortunately, much less infectious than mumps, with an estimated R0 of roughly 3.

With this number, the proportion of people who need to be infected is lower but still high, sitting at around 70 percent of the entire population.

Which brings us to why herd immunity could never be considered a preventative measure.

If 70 percent of your population is infected with a disease, it is by definition not prevention. How can it be? Most of the people in your country are sick! And the hopeful nonsense that you can reach that 70 percent by just infecting young people is simply absurd. If only young people are immune, you'd have clusters of older people with no immunity at all, making it incredibly risky for anyone over a certain age to leave their house lest they get infected, forever.

It's also worth thinking about the repercussions of this disastrous scenario – the best estimates put COVID-19 infection fatality rate at around 0.5-1 percent. If 70 percent of an entire population gets sick, that means that between 0.35-0.7 percent of everyone in a country could die, which is a catastrophic outcome.

Until we have a vaccine, anyone talking about herd immunity as a preventative strategy for COVID-19 is simply wrong. Fortunately, there are other ways of preventing infections from spreading, which all boil down to avoiding people who are sick.

So stay home, stay safe, and practice physical distancing as much as possible.

 

dont know what you been smoking, if we dont do something, death in america is upto 2 million people

 

So as long as all governments are behaving tyrannical, it's nothing to worry about.

Stellar logic.

 

No, I'm suggesting that lose of employment and income lead to increased mortality and morbidity. And it does, as economic research has shown repeatedly.

 

So are you going to point to the people who say we should do nothing? I can't seem to find any. Sounds like you just made it up.

 

If the problem is lack of healthcare infrastructure, then just invest more resources into it until supply meets demand. And the best part about my plan? It can be done without crippling our society.

 

So invest more resources into healthcare.

Boom. Problem solved.

Or are you only in favor of solutions that require the entire country to surrender their most essential freedoms on an indefinite basis?

 

Look Einstein, we are going to lose probably over 100K citizens WITH the "draconian measures" in place. Anything less results in a higher body count and rationing of medical services.

 

The planet is over populated with humans, sir.

 

I disagree, sir. I would very much like all friends and family to stay as long as possible.