Herd Immunity?

Actually, that particular link suggests that 500,000 deaths is the best case (not 2 million, the worst case) using the data and modelling the particular researchers have chosen to use.

"Assuming an optimistic herd immunity threshold of 50%, for countries such as France and the USA, this would translate into 100,000–450,000 and 500,000–2,100,000 deaths, respectively. Men, older individuals and those with comorbidities are disproportionally affected, with infection fatality ratios of 3.3% for those older than 60 years and increased mortality in individuals with diabetes, cardiac disease, chronic respiratory disease or obesity. The expected impact would be substantially smaller in younger populations."


So, the article's author seems to agree with some posters here on many points. Older people and people with particular health conditions are more at risk and need to take more precautions than younger, healthier populations.


The link also reads, "At this stage, only non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as social distancing, patient isolation, face masks and hand hygiene, have proven effective in controlling the circulation of the virus and should therefore be strictly enforced. Potential antiviral drugs that reduce viral loads and thereby decrease transmission, or therapeutics that prevent complications and deaths, may become significant for epidemic control in the coming months."

No one is arguing against sensible measures like social distancing and hygiene, or self-isolating if you have symptoms. That article takes a negative slant which is pessimistic about herd immunity, but it also assumes that we stop social distancing and that the elderly/frail are not protected. I don't think anyone advocates going back to a completely ignorant "Square A" starting point versus reopening the economy while taking normal distancing precautions and protecting the weak.

 

“If you have symptoms “

Of course we know that you spread the virus BEFORE you have symptoms

and “assuming optimistic herd immunity threshold of 50%”

Yes... that’s best case... and even THAT could be as high as 2 million dead.

Again mostly older and sicker folks

But **** em right?

 

We still do not know if having been exposed to the Corona Virus gives one life long immunity. Also, there is reason to believe that one infection can leave one with permanent damage.

 

People without symptoms aren't going to know to stay home, so....???

One way to solve that: Stay 6 feet away from people.

COVID-19 most commonly spreads during close contact

• People who are physically near (within 6 feet) a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person are at greatest risk of infection.

 

What are you talking about?

 

It is a coronivirus. Since other coronaviruses like the common cold and some flu strains do not profer life long immunity, there is no reason to believe there would be more than temporary immunity with this virus. I haven't seen anyone seriously suggest that.

All viruses can leave people with permanent damage, particularly elderly and people with compromised immune systems. Covid-19 is a new strain, but is thus far not behaving much differently from other coronaviruses with which we are familiar.

The major difference is the amount of media attention and politicization received.

 

If you can transmit the virus for 24 hours before showing symptoms, then protect yourself. Stay 6 feet away from other people to minimize your risk.

It's not rocket science.

 

The major difference is the infection rate and death rate

 

You’re promoting halfway measures. Those generally result in less than desirable results.
But then you’re also promoting “herd immunity” which is batshit crazy so

 

Yep. High infection; low death rate. We dodged a bullet.

This is the third novel virus in recent history which jumped from bats to humans through some intermediary. The first two were very deadly. This one is related to the first two, but not so deadly.

Could Covid-19 be preparing us for a 21st Century battle with multiple unique SARS or MERS Cov viruses, and how shall we respond as they crop up? Hopefully not in a global panic.

 

The main advice is still the same as Day 1. Social distance and wash your hands. There isn't anything halfway about common sense proven ways to lower the transfer of infections. The only "herd immunity" I'm promoting basically is stopping the economic lockdowns. I'm not advocating that everyone start having orgies. lol

Keep your distance. Wash your hands.

 

Darn, you almost had my vote for a second there.

 

This is not a situation in which to apply herd immunity. We are still learning how this virus is affecting us both short and long term and there are legitimate reasons why pharma is having a difficult time developing a vaccine against it. Herd immunity can be an effective method on known viruses but this is not one of them. Those promoting this method are not only advocating for a form of genocide against certain factions of people but it also will create a stigma against herd immunity that may affect whether it will be a trusted method in situations where it is appropriate.

 

We have vaccines for known viruses, so name another time it is appropriate to apply herd immunity. Maybe, when we don't have a vaccine and it may takes years to get an effective one?

 

I'm thinking about the measles as one situation it could be appropriate in a community. I disagree that it would be appropriate with a strain that isn't acting like a virus we've ever seen. I guess we have to decide what morality rate we're willing to accept. Unfortunately because deciding on whether herd immunity is or isn't the right approach impacts us as a whole and not as individuals. The tricky part is figuring out our next move without fellow citizens feeling put upon.

 

Measles is extremely deadly. The vaccine is required for children.

This virus is acting fairly typical for a coronavirus, now that we've had 10 months to watch and study it. It's predecessors, SARS-1 and MERS were very deadly, but they didn't spread easily. This is the 3rd SARS/MERS which is more contagious but far less deadly, and it appears to be getting even less deadly as the months pass.

 

I'll repeat here what I said elsewhere, instead of having to type everything again. This post of mine is much more topic here than where I first posted it, anyway.

https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-embraces-declaration-scientists-121853918.html

Of course, that moron Scott Atlas and his mentor are behind it...

I know that this will appeal to all Libertarian and many conservative folks... but it is a full-blown, unmitigated disaster, especially this close to a vaccine. This is *precisely* why I want this administration gone. You know, they probably WILL implement this idiocy before they are hopefully kicked out. They have until at least January 20th to contribute to the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Here, in a few words, why this is wrong:

1. The idea of exposing the young and healthy who won't die while employing "focused protection" for the vulnerable ones is laughable when you realize that half the American population is made of vulnerable ones, when you look at the millions who have obesity, hypertension, diabetes, are heavy smokers, are cancer survivors, are old, and so one and so forth. This may work a bit better in younger and healthier populations in some European countries but over here it will be a disaster.

2. Where is that focused protection? BS. It won't happen. Is a, say, 40-year-old with an autoimmune disease and taking immunosuppressant drugs, allowed by law to stay home, not working, and getting his full salary? No, this is an "idea" but in reality that susceptible person would still be forced to be out and about if he wanted to continue to earn a living. What will happen is that the younger and healthier ones will bring the virus to the susceptible ones. If we were to seclude half of our population... well, do you know, with all the exceptions for essential workers and stuff, how many people got actually secluded during the Spring lockdowns? 46%. So what is different after all? We'd seclude 50% now? BS. So who will be in charge of determining who needs the "focused protection", who doesn't, and how to implement it, and what will the ones identified as in need of it get, in terms of their ability to work and earn a living? It's nice to vent these kinds of ideas that seem brilliant until you start looking into logistics and unintended consequences.

3. If this weren't tragic, I'd roll on the ground laughing at the idea that 10% to 20% of the population getting infected confers herd immunity. Whoever pretends that, simply doesn't know what he is saying. Sure, one of the proponents is an epidemiologist... but he probably has an agenda. I know how to calculate the herd immunity threshold (and taught people how to do it in other posts, no time for repeating this, now), and there is no way to reach a result of 10 to 20%.

4. The young and healthy won't die as numerous, but that's not all, for this virus. If people look at a paper I have linked to several times in my posting history, the one authored by the German group from Frankfurt that did cardiac MRI, troponin, and inflammatory markers in patients who have survived Covid-19, they will see that in that study, a whooping 78% of subjects had signs of severe heart damage, which is silent now but may result in heart failure down the road (the kind of damage seen is similar to the kind that does tend to lead to heart failure). The finding was seen across the board, including in mild cases (67% of the patients in that study had only had mild cases), including in the young, and including in those without underlying conditions. Ever since, while the 78% number hasn't been confirmed, several other studies found the same heart damage. That's very scary, and is only ONE organ. The SARS-CoV-2 also attacks the brain, the liver, the kidneys, and especially the lungs, and all these organs can sustain permanent damage even in patients who don't die.

This reminds me of the Epstein-Barr virus... everybody thought it was benign, given that the acute infection hardly had any consequence... years later, evidence popped up that the virus stayed dormant after the acute phase, and later in life caused not one, not two, but 9 pretty serious diseases, and some of them fatal, such as nasty lymphomas.

So, great, the idea of infecting our youngsters sounds great to these idiots... until ten years down the road we are in the middle of another "pandemic"... of heart failure, lung fibrosis, and kidney insufficiency. Just great.

And this, so unnecessarily, since some of the vaccines being studied look very impressive in their immunogenicity and lack of serious adverse events... a much safer and better way to achieve herd immunity.

That's exactly what I had in mind when I said, we need to kick these people out before they unnecessarily kill more Americans.

5. Even just looking at the death toll, if we were to truly allow this virus to hit 70-80% of the population for a more credible herd immunity threshold, let's just look at the numbers. Take 75% of the population getting infected, and 0.65% mortality. What do we get? 1,608,750 dead people. So, sure, herd immunity CAN be achieved naturally, but the issue is, what's the price to pay? Now, let's calculate the number who would be not dead, but maimed. We're seeing 10% of survivors with severe, likely permanent organ damage. That's 24,750,000.

Pray tell, what's more economically damaging? Keeping some more sensible precautions for a few more months until the vaccines are among us, or tossing them off the window and ending up with grossly 1.5 million people dead and 25 million maimed? Do you all have any idea of the economic impact of 25 million people having their productivity and life expectancy curtailed, in terms of the burden of care that they will need??? That's much worse economic impact than any lockdown. And no, I'm not advocating for more lockdowns, but I am advocating for remaining vigilant and prudent until the vaccines arrive.

Proponents of the herd immunity approach are dangerous morons. The more this idiotic idea takes hold in the White House, the more I want everybody there gone, before they do any more damage.

 

We dodged no bullet. One, because it's not over yet (far from it). Two, because this virus' death toll is obviously not the only issue. It tends to kill the most vulnerable people, and still in a relatively low rate (not to say I don't lament every single one of those deaths, but it's not much worse than 0.65%, at most 1%), but the much bigger problem in the long run and in terms of the long-term economic impact, is the severe sequelae we've been seeing in a much larger number of people. When you have a potential for 10% of the people who caught this, coming out of it with a weakened heart that will fail in a few years, you're talking about MAJOR impact. And that's just ONE organ. It damages many others.

Read this, from the American Heart Association, a group of people who know a think or two about the heart:

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/09/03/what-covid-19-is-doing-to-the-heart-even-after-recovery

And this was a month and a half ago. Ever since, we've seen even more cases, and some of us are starting to believe that it's 10% of the patients (a study foudn 78%, another one 37%, probably not all of them will chronically persist although the one with the 37% was looked at several months after the infection, but likely at least 10% will be a concern).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ur-heart-even-if-you-havent-had-any-symptoms/

I'll repeat here in bold, the title of this latest article, since some people don't read the links provided. The virus that can do this, is the virus that these morons who propose herd immunity want to unleash on the population:

COVID-19 Can Wreck Your Heart, Even if You Haven’t Had Any Symptoms

 

If it were predictable we would have a vaccine. Far less contagious for who? This is not acting like the strains we know. One oddity I noticed back in January was the flu symptoms people were experiencing were more prevalent to influenza A which typically shows up after influenza B has run its course. Now it makes more sense to me because this virus is like A but on steroids.

 

Vaccines usually take 5-7 years. Covid-19 is predictable "enough" that we might have a semi-effective vaccine this year or next.

Excess deaths this year started before we were testing for Covid. Very likely many of those deaths were Covid, but got counted as "probable" Influenza A. It's also possible to get the flu and Covid at the same time, but a death will only count as one or the other.

 

Thats how we beat every other sickness in history. Its not right or wrong. Its nature.

 

Not long ago the collective political Left demanded that most of the western world shut down their economy over a flu virus and now the WHO is saying . . . that was a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad idea and that it and massive across the board sheltering in place for month after month ended up doing much more harm than good. Oops!

 

FDA has developed alternative pathways to accelerate licensure of vaccines which fast track the process. They seem ready to expedite review as the vaccine applications are submitted.

 

Yes. That's a good thing. Last I read, there are six vaccine candidates. Trials on two of the six options have been halted temporarily due to serious health side effects in the human lab rats on which they are experimenting.

One of the options should prove safe and effective more quickly than the normal time line.

 

Of course you also want all schools and bars and restaurants opened fully...and only wear a mask (the least effective you can find) because it's a law ( which you oppose)