What's new
By:

Coronavirus

One Brow said:
I might have misunderstood what you mean here. Are you saying that covid19 will be part of the back ground by the time the vaccine gets to market, but still killing people are basically the same rate?
Click to expand...
COVID will be with us. When I said that by the time a vaccine would be available, that we would not needed, it was partial hyperbole. It wasn't meant to mean that a vaccine couldn't/wouldn't have some role and usefulness, just that the idea that we're pushing for a vaccine (that we need a vaccine to make COVID go away or to go back to normal [which a lot of talking heads are pushing the idea of never going back to normal]) is not necessary to end the severity of the pandemic. Would COVID still be present? Absolutely. Will it still kill people at 'basically the same rate'? Well, yes, unless it mutates more or as more of the vulnerable die from this and there are less vulnerable to infect, then it can reduce. But again when we say 'killing people at basically the same rate,' we need to have a clear picture of the true infection fatality rate. But COVID 'killing people at basically the same rate [per infection]' is going to be present forever, vaccination or not. I'm curious if the general population has conflated the idea of herd immunity with eradication. If so, people can google the list of infectious diseases that have been eradicated.

silesian said:
Terrible take

it doesn’t burn itself out. — are you talking about herd immunity? You don’t get that at 25%

there will be hundreds of millions to protect with a vaccine.
Click to expand...
Herd immunity as a concept is discussed in a vacuum, and that's what I've been saying for months. We repeat this idea of 60-70% in the same way the religiously inclined repetitiously recite concrete interpretations of the Bible, without trying to dig a little deeper because it's so widely accepted that we don't look at the larger picture. First, we're conflating the idea of immunity with detectable antibodies. Second, you're free to find an example of any infectious disease that did not get reigned in until it infected 60-70% of a population.

silesian said:
are these geologists or astronomers?

epidemiologists who study pandemics have it at 60-70%
Click to expand...
Some of them. The vast majority of epidemiologists that we're being exposed to. The same thing for what we thought the true infection fatality rate was back in March and April. All the scientists [that the public were exposed to] had the mortality rate as higher than 1%, (and even 1% was being generous, most were 2% or more) when now the generalized consensus is that the infection fatality rate is 0.3% or less (and decreasing). But I believe we'll disagree on this. Again, there are a lot more variables in here than having detectable antibodies, which is what we typically do to conflate that with immunity/susceptibility.
 
silesian said:
are these geologists or astronomers?

epidemiologists who study pandemics have it at 60-70%
Click to expand...
Also, if you'd reference back to what I posted on the 18th, it answers the question as to whether these were 'geologists or astronomers' and is from the British Medical Journal:

www.bmj.com

Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?

It seemed a truth universally acknowledged that the human population had no pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2, but is that actually the case? Peter Doshi explores the emerging research on immunological responses Even in local areas that have experienced some of the greatest rises in excess...
www.bmj.com www.bmj.com

That's not a study, but rather more of a review/editorial and just a primer for a lot of literature that's just been published regarding the issue. It's a good starting point if you're serious about the question.
 


BDB is not alone in this thinking. I'm genuinely curious if anyone can articulate an end-game here. The false positivity rates alone would disqualify many areas from numerous metrics. Also, when we're looking at 300-some-odd cases in the largest city in America, what value does that have? Oxford has already put out that finding live virus in a cycle threshold beyond 25-26 cycles is questionable, and anything over 30 amplification cycles is dead virus. In the US we are using 40+ amplification cycles, which translates to about 90% of people testing positive no longer being infectious (assuming they were infectious to begin with).
 
There are going to be a million conspiracy theories (there already are) on the Rona and I will believe them all. I hope this is the strangest time of my life, but I have a feeling it likely gets far weirder.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
There are going to be a million conspiracy theories (there already are) on the Rona and I will believe them all. I hope this is the strangest time of my life, but I have a feeling it likely gets far weirder.
Click to expand...
Do you even qanon bro?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
infection said:
Also, if you'd reference back to what I posted on the 18th, it answers the question as to whether these were 'geologists or astronomers' and is from the British Medical Journal:

www.bmj.com

Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?

It seemed a truth universally acknowledged that the human population had no pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2, but is that actually the case? Peter Doshi explores the emerging research on immunological responses Even in local areas that have experienced some of the greatest rises in excess...
www.bmj.com www.bmj.com

That's not a study, but rather more of a review/editorial and just a primer for a lot of literature that's just been published regarding the issue. It's a good starting point if you're serious about the question.
Click to expand...

read it.

Where is the part that says we get herd immunity at 20% infection?
 
silesian said:
read it.

Where is the part that says we get herd immunity at 20% infection?
Click to expand...
Well, for one, I didn’t say it did. For two, if you’re looking for that discussion that you missed from the link, it’s found here:

While most experts have taken the R0 for SARS-CoV-2 (generally estimated to be between 2 and 3) and concluded that at least 50% of people need to be immune before herd immunity is reached, Gomes and colleagues calculate the threshold at 10% to 20%.
Click to expand...

And here:

When a population has people with pre-existing immunity, as the T cell studies may be indicating is the case, the herd immunity threshold based on an R0 of 2.5 can be reduced from 60% of a population getting infected right down to 10%, depending on the quantity and distribution of pre-existing immunity among people, Gupta’s group calculated.
Click to expand...

But, more importantly, it was the entire gist of the publication that spoke to the over simplification of how we conceptualize herd immunity. This conversation started when I said that it seems to be burning out at about 20-25% seroprevalence, to which you responded that you don’t get herd immunity at levels that low, then stated that epidemiologists have herd immunity at 60-70% (and joked that those saying lower must be geologists or astronomers), to which I then linked the publication above which elaborated on a whole of reasons as to why herd immunity may be much lower than 60-70% (which is essentially what we’re conflating with seroprevalence, which isn’t exactly the same thing). And it references multiple epidemiologists in that, among them Sunetra Gupta from Oxford, who’s one of the preeminent infectious disease epidemiologists in the world.

The line that sums it all up nicely is as follows:

The research offers a powerful reminder that very little in immunology is cut and dried.
Click to expand...

Which is consistent with what I was saying back in June:

infection said:
I think herd immunity as a concept is more simplistic in theory than it is in reality, and may function more as a theoretical model than anything else.
Click to expand...
The problem is, is that “herd immunity is 60-70%” is catchy. It prints well. It’s easy to remember. It’s able to take many very complicated concepts and try to distill it down to something digestible enough for print. More importantly, it also helps facilitate and perpetuate a certain level of doom. But it’s a concept. It’s not a written rule of the universe that’s beholden to contemporary scientific and societal understanding.
 
What’s the threshold for Herd Mentality? Especially since it just needs to be herd developed. That’s it. We just need the herd to develop it.
 
The Thriller said:
What’s the threshold for Herd Mentality? Especially since it just needs to be herd developed. That’s it. We just need the herd to develop it.
Click to expand...

I mean I can't stand Trump but are we really gonna make him sound like an idiot for a slip of the tongue with Biden participating in debates tonight? This is where I get worried about Joe... seems the less we hear from him the more confidence we have in him.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I mean I can't stand Trump but are we really gonna make him sound like an idiot for a slip of the tongue with Biden participating in debates tonight? This is where I get worried about Joe... seems the less we hear from him the more confidence we have in him.
Click to expand...
Tonight could decide the election.

Hope Biden is drinking his gatorade and eating his wheaties!
 
Gameface said:
Tonight could decide the election.

Hope Biden is drinking his gatorade and eating his wheaties!
Click to expand...
It could be ugly. It shouldn't matter this much but Biden having huge brain farts or getting steam rolled by Trump is likely the only way Trump can pull ahead.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I mean I can't stand Trump but are we really gonna make him sound like an idiot for a slip of the tongue with Biden participating in debates tonight? This is where I get worried about Joe... seems the less we hear from him the more confidence we have in him.
Click to expand...

Trump doesn’t just have gaffes, he says some of the dumbest things out there. If Biden said half the **** Trump does, Trump would be leading by a mile. The questions about Biden’s mental wellness is laughable when you just watch 5 mins of a Trump press conference and rally. It’s obvious which candidate most likely has mental and substance abuse problems. That’s why I post this stuff. Because it’s hilarious that Team Trump is trying to make mental health and substance abuse talking points.
 
Gameface said:
Tonight could decide the election.

Hope Biden is drinking his gatorade and eating his wheaties!
Click to expand...

I think people will wake up tomorrow regardless of who the presumed winner is and still realize that nothing has changed. Covid is still out there, the economy is still precarious and minorities aren't seeing better treatment.

If I were to guess, tonight will largely be a draw which is a win for Biden - he just needs to run out the clock.
 
The Thriller said:
Trump doesn’t just have gaffes, he says some of the dumbest things out there. If Biden said half the **** Trump does, Trump would be leading by a mile. The questions about Biden’s mental wellness is laughable when you just watch 5 mins of a Trump press conference and rally. It’s obvious which candidate most likely has mental and substance abuse problems. That’s why I post this stuff. Because it’s hilarious that Team Trump is trying to make mental health and substance abuse talking points.
Click to expand...
I agree... just think this one was a slip of the tongue type of thing. Trump has said some outrageous ****.
 
The Thriller said:
That’s why I post this stuff. Because it’s hilarious that Team Trump is trying to make mental health and substance abuse talking points.
Click to expand...
It seems as if why you posted it is because we had been discussing herd immunity, as this is the coronavirus thread, after all. After a substantive post regarding herd immunity that actually counters all the previous high-fiving about erroneous ideas regarding herd immunity, we get a two-week old tweet of a paraphasic error. It's almost as if people aren't interested in scientific literature and discussion, but in how this may be used for political football.
 
infection said:
It seems as if why you posted it is because we had been discussing herd immunity, as this is the coronavirus thread, after all. After a substantive post regarding herd immunity that actually counters all the previous high-fiving about erroneous ideas regarding herd immunity, we get a two-week old tweet of a paraphasic error. It's almost as if people aren't interested in scientific literature and discussion, but in how this may be used for political football.
Click to expand...
I can't wait to hear how the virus is discussed post election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top