5 ms·

Sorry, I have no knowledge on virology topics. But this “herd immunity” thing is a complete nonsense. Politicians may repeat it as long as they want, but it sti

by lnsru 7y ago

Sorry, I have no knowledge on virology topics. But this “herd immunity” thing is a complete nonsense. Politicians may repeat it as long as they want, but it still makes no sense. 50 million people must be infected, 1,5 million will die. It will take many years. While immunity very probably(????) disappear after months. Asian countries had many different viruses in the past, all of the contained. Why is it so difficult to follow their path?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Asian countries have not contained all viral outbreaks in the past. In both 1957 and 1968, Asian-origin flu epidemics killed millions. It's possible that containment could have been achieved if every country had swiftly followed Korea's example in early February, but there's no precedent for containing a human-to-human transmissible disease with millions of cases across the world without a vaccine.
- lnsru 7y ago
  Thank you very much. I am too young to remember these events. But I am also confident, that current technology is better than 50 years ago.
cipher_system 7y ago
How do you know it's complete nonsense if you have no knowledge on the subject?
- lnsru 7y ago
  How do you start? Write invitation letters with date and time to first batch to be infected? Nonsense it is because it’s barely doable. The people will simply leave country unless one puts military on the borders.
  - cipher_system 7y ago
    Well, unless you have a vaccine, the virus does all of the work for you. Also, you can't really leave a country now anyway, and even if you could, the virus would be at the destination. The herd immunity is not really something that you do but more of an unavoidable side effect. I'm not sure that we have much of a choice now that we are well beyond the point of containment.
6510 7y ago
I think the analogy says more about the person using it than the actual topic. If it was appropriate to compare people with... well... cows? Why not slaughter the lot and start over? Or take the stupid analogy to the next level and talk crop engineering? There! The solution has been staring us in the face all along.... or wait...
- nradov 7y ago
  That's just the terminology used in epidemiology. Don't read anything into it.
  - 6510 7y ago
    Oh but I do! Group immunity or collective immunity will do just fine. I really don't care how popular this zoology terminology is. For me taxonomy works like: A pack of wolves, a flock of birds and a herd of cattle. Beware when they start calling you [say] a consumer.
wool_gather 7y ago
Herd immunity is a real phenomenon -- it's the strategic goal behind widespread vaccination, and the reason that vaccination controls disease even if less than 100% of the population takes the vaccine or gets immunity from it. That said, I think you're right to be skeptical of the "let everyone get it and we'll have natural herd immunity" idea.
standardUser 7y ago
You don't know how many people are currently immune. Or how immunity even works for this virus. No one does. Zika was rendered mostly harmless by herd immunity before experts even knew what happened. I don't see what is gained by making armchair proclamations as if you know something the rest of us don't. You don't even seem to know what you don't know.
sdffdsfdsfsddsf 7y ago
The death rate is certainly lower than 3%.
- wool_gather 7y ago
  Worldwide at this moment total (cumulative) deaths over total (cumulative) cases is nearly 7%, with considerably over half the total cumulative cases still active. Granted that we know that there are many undiagnosed cases, but we don't have a clear picture how many. There's no basis right now for your assertion. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
  - sdffdsfdsfsddsf 7y ago
    The basis is studies of closed communities. Here in Germany there was a study of a whole village (testing everyone), that found a death rate of 0.37%. Other interesting data sets may be Diamond Princess cruise ship, Theodore Roosevelt carrier, or Health Care Workers. So saying there is "no basis" is a bit rich. There may still be uncertainty. Edit: this (just googled) article cites Diamong Princess to lead to an estimate of 0.5% death rate https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-outbreak-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-death-rate https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-outbreak-dia... (the percentage of deaths on the DP was higher, but the passengers were also comparatively old on average). Edit 2: lol for the downvote. What the fuck? Edit 3: about the study in Germany https://www.theblaze.com/news/german-study-shows-coronavirus-mortality-rate-five-times-lower-than-widely-reported-numbers https://www.theblaze.com/news/german-study-shows-coronavirus... (don't know "The Blaze", but if you care, you can google for better sources - google for "Streeck"). Edit 4: Theodore Roosevelt carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_USS_Theodore_Roosevelt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_U...
    - bpodgursky 7y ago
      There are a lot of people on HN (and the internet at large) who view any statement adjusting-downward death rates as "COVID denialism", and will reflexively downvote attempts to correct in that direction. In the most charitable reading, you could view them akin to the CDC and masks, trying to keep the public slightly misinformed for the greater good (preserve mask supplies for hospitals). In the least charitable reading, there are a lot of depressed and angry people on the internet, who want to believe that this disease is truly civilization-ending, and attack any opposing narrative. Either way, I would not take it personally, or as a judgement on your actual quoted facts.
notechback 7y ago
Herd immunity is not just a buzzword. We have two options to reduce the harm of infectious diseases: eradicate them or build herd immunity. The first option has become impossible with this virus that's now truly global and likely much more spread than is known. Therefore herd immunity is the ONLY option. The question then is how to get as many people as possible immune - you'll either need a vaccine or many need to get the infection and survive. A vaccine is not on the horizon for another 6-12 months, so the best course of action is to build the number of survivors. What brings death? Mainly the sudden onslaught on the health system. If there is no bed, respirator, blood supply, ... Left then you're much more likely to have patients die than if you have a hospital at regular capacity. There are some that WILL for but by slowly building immunity (i.e. allowing some parts of the population to get exposed) you avoid the high death toll of an unmanaged outbreak. So if total eradication is impossible, slow infection rates are better than none. Why? Because if you don't build the immunity you will again have violent outbreaks killing many. And you simply can't lock everyone at home for another 6 months.
- wl 7y ago
  > If there is no bed, respirator... Most of the people who go on respirators die. If the health system is going to be our weapon here until the vaccine is developed, we need to find ways to manage the disease before it gets to the point where we intubate people. Remdesivir might be that drug, but we're unlikely to have the kind of supply needed for what you propose until after the first vaccines potentially may be available.
- usaar333 7y ago
  There is no reason you can't keep a disease at a very low level (to the point any given person is unlikely to get the disease over their lifetime) via testing, contact tracing and quarantine. Iceland and South Korea both prove you can in fact.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    Iceland is tiny and it is a little early to proclaim SK an unqualified success. If the only way to keep the disease at a very low level is to have a new normal of strong quarantine indefinitely, then you are asking for something unrealistic. Even more so in western democracies where people are accustomed to a great deal of personal freedom.
wh1t3n01s3 7y ago
Immunity does not disappear. The virus could mutate, but not likely and surely would become less deadly. Herd immunity is a fact. It is natural. And we’ll probably reach it sooner than you think. I hope like everybody for a vaccine but I personally don’t think we’ll make it on time enough.

by lnsru 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

Asian countries have not contained all viral outbreaks in the past. In both 1957 and 1968, Asian-origin flu epidemics killed millions. It's possible that containment could have been achieved if every country had swiftly followed Korea's example in early February, but there's no precedent for containing a human-to-human transmissible disease with millions of cases across the world without a vaccine.

lnsru 7y ago
Thank you very much. I am too young to remember these events. But I am also confident, that current technology is better than 50 years ago.

cipher_system 7y ago

How do you know it's complete nonsense if you have no knowledge on the subject?

lnsru 7y ago
How do you start? Write invitation letters with date and time to first batch to be infected? Nonsense it is because it’s barely doable. The people will simply leave country unless one puts military on the borders.
- cipher_system 7y ago
  Well, unless you have a vaccine, the virus does all of the work for you. Also, you can't really leave a country now anyway, and even if you could, the virus would be at the destination. The herd immunity is not really something that you do but more of an unavoidable side effect. I'm not sure that we have much of a choice now that we are well beyond the point of containment.

6510 7y ago

I think the analogy says more about the person using it than the actual topic. If it was appropriate to compare people with... well... cows? Why not slaughter the lot and start over? Or take the stupid analogy to the next level and talk crop engineering? There! The solution has been staring us in the face all along.... or wait...

nradov 7y ago
That's just the terminology used in epidemiology. Don't read anything into it.
- 6510 7y ago
  Oh but I do! Group immunity or collective immunity will do just fine. I really don't care how popular this zoology terminology is. For me taxonomy works like: A pack of wolves, a flock of birds and a herd of cattle. Beware when they start calling you [say] a consumer.

wool_gather 7y ago

Herd immunity is a real phenomenon -- it's the strategic goal behind widespread vaccination, and the reason that vaccination controls disease even if less than 100% of the population takes the vaccine or gets immunity from it. That said, I think you're right to be skeptical of the "let everyone get it and we'll have natural herd immunity" idea.

standardUser 7y ago

You don't know how many people are currently immune. Or how immunity even works for this virus. No one does. Zika was rendered mostly harmless by herd immunity before experts even knew what happened. I don't see what is gained by making armchair proclamations as if you know something the rest of us don't. You don't even seem to know what you don't know.

sdffdsfdsfsddsf 7y ago

The death rate is certainly lower than 3%.

wool_gather 7y ago
Worldwide at this moment total (cumulative) deaths over total (cumulative) cases is nearly 7%, with considerably over half the total cumulative cases still active. Granted that we know that there are many undiagnosed cases, but we don't have a clear picture how many. There's no basis right now for your assertion. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
- sdffdsfdsfsddsf 7y ago
  The basis is studies of closed communities. Here in Germany there was a study of a whole village (testing everyone), that found a death rate of 0.37%. Other interesting data sets may be Diamond Princess cruise ship, Theodore Roosevelt carrier, or Health Care Workers. So saying there is "no basis" is a bit rich. There may still be uncertainty. Edit: this (just googled) article cites Diamong Princess to lead to an estimate of 0.5% death rate https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-outbreak-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-death-rate https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-outbreak-dia... (the percentage of deaths on the DP was higher, but the passengers were also comparatively old on average). Edit 2: lol for the downvote. What the fuck? Edit 3: about the study in Germany https://www.theblaze.com/news/german-study-shows-coronavirus-mortality-rate-five-times-lower-than-widely-reported-numbers https://www.theblaze.com/news/german-study-shows-coronavirus... (don't know "The Blaze", but if you care, you can google for better sources - google for "Streeck"). Edit 4: Theodore Roosevelt carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_USS_Theodore_Roosevelt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_U...
  - bpodgursky 7y ago
    There are a lot of people on HN (and the internet at large) who view any statement adjusting-downward death rates as "COVID denialism", and will reflexively downvote attempts to correct in that direction. In the most charitable reading, you could view them akin to the CDC and masks, trying to keep the public slightly misinformed for the greater good (preserve mask supplies for hospitals). In the least charitable reading, there are a lot of depressed and angry people on the internet, who want to believe that this disease is truly civilization-ending, and attack any opposing narrative. Either way, I would not take it personally, or as a judgement on your actual quoted facts.

notechback 7y ago

Herd immunity is not just a buzzword. We have two options to reduce the harm of infectious diseases: eradicate them or build herd immunity. The first option has become impossible with this virus that's now truly global and likely much more spread than is known. Therefore herd immunity is the ONLY option. The question then is how to get as many people as possible immune - you'll either need a vaccine or many need to get the infection and survive. A vaccine is not on the horizon for another 6-12 months, so the best course of action is to build the number of survivors. What brings death? Mainly the sudden onslaught on the health system. If there is no bed, respirator, blood supply, ... Left then you're much more likely to have patients die than if you have a hospital at regular capacity. There are some that WILL for but by slowly building immunity (i.e. allowing some parts of the population to get exposed) you avoid the high death toll of an unmanaged outbreak. So if total eradication is impossible, slow infection rates are better than none. Why? Because if you don't build the immunity you will again have violent outbreaks killing many. And you simply can't lock everyone at home for another 6 months.

wl 7y ago
> If there is no bed, respirator... Most of the people who go on respirators die. If the health system is going to be our weapon here until the vaccine is developed, we need to find ways to manage the disease before it gets to the point where we intubate people. Remdesivir might be that drug, but we're unlikely to have the kind of supply needed for what you propose until after the first vaccines potentially may be available.
usaar333 7y ago
There is no reason you can't keep a disease at a very low level (to the point any given person is unlikely to get the disease over their lifetime) via testing, contact tracing and quarantine. Iceland and South Korea both prove you can in fact.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  Iceland is tiny and it is a little early to proclaim SK an unqualified success. If the only way to keep the disease at a very low level is to have a new normal of strong quarantine indefinitely, then you are asking for something unrealistic. Even more so in western democracies where people are accustomed to a great deal of personal freedom.

wh1t3n01s3 7y ago

Immunity does not disappear. The virus could mutate, but not likely and surely would become less deadly. Herd immunity is a fact. It is natural. And we’ll probably reach it sooner than you think. I hope like everybody for a vaccine but I personally don’t think we’ll make it on time enough.