4 ms·

>If there is no vaccine, or if the vaccine isn't very good, social-distancing and contact-tracing is the only way to win. Why is herd immunity not a "way we wi

>If there is no vaccine, or if the vaccine isn't very good, social-distancing and contact-tracing is the only way to win. Why is herd immunity not a "way we win"? edit: Ah, yes, concern about the time to get there. Well, let's hope that happens quicker than expected (has any study not shown this?) because from where I'm sitting it looks like lock down is ending.

pacificmint 6y ago
Because a lot of people will be dead by the time we get to ~70% immunity.
- mrfusion 6y ago
  As I understand it, the healthy majority would get the immunity while continuing to isolate the at risk groups.
  - james_s_tayler 6y ago
    Which is not very realistic as a possibility given the number of people that fall into the at risk groups. It sounds simple in theory but seems very unlikely to be something workable in practice.
  - AaronFriel 6y ago
    The "at risk" groups include a sizable percent of the US population, and isolating all of their first degree daily contacts alone is likely impossible. Hospice patients, and the hospice workers. People already in treatment, and the healthcare professionals providing them with care. People who smoke, have diabetes, a heart condition, or are immune compromised, and so on, and everyone they know. This has got to be millions and millions of people, and this isolation will be extraordinarily porous. Those folks have friends and family too, they will slip up, exposing their contacts and then the virus is on the other side of a firewall. And we've seen how quickly the virus spreads in isolated groups!
  - adrianN 6y ago
    It's impossible to isolate only the at risk group. That's like 30% of the population. Also, there is growing evidence that even mild cases can leave more or less permanent damage.
- sjwright 6y ago
  And the huge number of severe cases will overwhelm health care systems by an order of magnitude, risking the lives of other people who will need medical care to survive.
- coretx 6y ago
  Big IF we ever reach those numbers at all. (!)
edmundsauto 6y ago
The path to herd immunity includes a lot of death.
- mrfusion 6y ago
  What’s you’re source on that? As I understand it, Sweden is almost there.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Almost to herd immunity? No. They're at less than 1% infected (like most places), with more deaths per capita than the us despite a younger healthier population.
    - mrfusion 6y ago
      https://www.npr.org/2020/04/26/845211085/stockholm-expected-to-reach-herd-immunity-in-may-swedish-ambassador-says https://www.npr.org/2020/04/26/845211085/stockholm-expected-...
      - acdha 6y ago
        That’s a political answer to a question they’ve staked their political future on. Let’s wait for actual scientific evidence before accepting it.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    Uh... from what do you understand that? Sweden isn't even close. Their deaths/case ratio isn't too far off from New York. We have reasonably good evidence now that New York is maybe 30-50% of the way to herd immunity (plus or minus a factor of two or so). New York has six times the per capita deaths that Sweden does. Just extrapolating and multiplying their current number by 3x6==18, that's about 35000 dead swedes until they get to herd immunity. I genuinely don't understand the alternative world some people live in where Sweden has already beaten this. They're current curve is about 3 weeks behind most of Europe, largely due to the lack of lockdown that allowed the early outbreak to spread for longer.
maxerickson 6y ago
They'd rather not (and I agree) have the accompanying death toll that comes with getting to herd immunity by having lots of people get infected. (we also get the benefits of herd immunity if enough people get an effective vaccine)

pacificmint 6y ago

Because a lot of people will be dead by the time we get to ~70% immunity.

mrfusion 6y ago
As I understand it, the healthy majority would get the immunity while continuing to isolate the at risk groups.
- james_s_tayler 6y ago
  Which is not very realistic as a possibility given the number of people that fall into the at risk groups. It sounds simple in theory but seems very unlikely to be something workable in practice.
- AaronFriel 6y ago
  The "at risk" groups include a sizable percent of the US population, and isolating all of their first degree daily contacts alone is likely impossible. Hospice patients, and the hospice workers. People already in treatment, and the healthcare professionals providing them with care. People who smoke, have diabetes, a heart condition, or are immune compromised, and so on, and everyone they know. This has got to be millions and millions of people, and this isolation will be extraordinarily porous. Those folks have friends and family too, they will slip up, exposing their contacts and then the virus is on the other side of a firewall. And we've seen how quickly the virus spreads in isolated groups!
- adrianN 6y ago
  It's impossible to isolate only the at risk group. That's like 30% of the population. Also, there is growing evidence that even mild cases can leave more or less permanent damage.
sjwright 6y ago
And the huge number of severe cases will overwhelm health care systems by an order of magnitude, risking the lives of other people who will need medical care to survive.
coretx 6y ago
Big IF we ever reach those numbers at all. (!)

edmundsauto 6y ago

The path to herd immunity includes a lot of death.

mrfusion 6y ago
What’s you’re source on that? As I understand it, Sweden is almost there.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Almost to herd immunity? No. They're at less than 1% infected (like most places), with more deaths per capita than the us despite a younger healthier population.
  - mrfusion 6y ago
    https://www.npr.org/2020/04/26/845211085/stockholm-expected-to-reach-herd-immunity-in-may-swedish-ambassador-says https://www.npr.org/2020/04/26/845211085/stockholm-expected-...
    - acdha 6y ago
      That’s a political answer to a question they’ve staked their political future on. Let’s wait for actual scientific evidence before accepting it.
- newacct583 6y ago
  Uh... from what do you understand that? Sweden isn't even close. Their deaths/case ratio isn't too far off from New York. We have reasonably good evidence now that New York is maybe 30-50% of the way to herd immunity (plus or minus a factor of two or so). New York has six times the per capita deaths that Sweden does. Just extrapolating and multiplying their current number by 3x6==18, that's about 35000 dead swedes until they get to herd immunity. I genuinely don't understand the alternative world some people live in where Sweden has already beaten this. They're current curve is about 3 weeks behind most of Europe, largely due to the lack of lockdown that allowed the early outbreak to spread for longer.

maxerickson 6y ago

They'd rather not (and I agree) have the accompanying death toll that comes with getting to herd immunity by having lots of people get infected. (we also get the benefits of herd immunity if enough people get an effective vaccine)