3 ms·

Herd immunity is backwards... You can say "hey, look, the epidemic has died because of herd immunity", but you can't reasonably desire herd immunity if you can

Herd immunity is backwards... You can say "hey, look, the epidemic has died because of herd immunity", but you can't reasonably desire herd immunity if you can avoid it. Think of Ebola and herd immunity for more that a second, and you'll understand what it means: herd immunity is not the only way. Korea proves it too. SARS 2003 died without herd immunity either. What about HIV? Fancy trying herd immunity? Herd immunity shouldn't be a goal.

arcticbull 6y ago
> Herd immunity shouldn't be a goal. Herd immunity is how vaccines work. It's the reason not everyone needs to get the measles vaccine so long as most people do. > Think of Ebola and herd immunity for more that a second, and you'll understand what it means: herd immunity is not the only way. Korea proves it too. SARS 2003 died without herd immunity either. What about HIV? Fancy trying herd immunity? If you can obtain a slice of the population that is not particularly strongly affected by a disease large enough to achieve the same result as you would with a vaccine, it's an avenue. That's true of folks under 45, broadly speaking. You may not like it -- I may not like it -- but it is an effective avenue. It is the goal. This conversation is about different ways to achieve that goal.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Ah, I see, you're of the opinion there's some way to eradicate this disease without immunization -- by continued lockdowns? Given the R0 could be 5 and millions infected, that ship has long since sailed IMO, to the extent that I don't really even consider that an option.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
That's true. The terminology has gotten a bit confused; most people who say they want to follow a "herd immunity" plan really mean "I don't think we can avoid it". Country A achieving containment doesn't necessarily mean Country B can achieve it, at least not without impossible or unacceptable costs.
RealityVoid 6y ago
> you can't reasonably desire herd immunity if you can avoid it. And that is the crux of it. Can you avoid it? If you can avoid it, by all means do it. If you can't you might as well make sure you reach herd immunity by infecting the least susceptible age groups. The ability of the population to stay indoors is limited, _especially_ if they don't see the effects of the disease (because they are indoors, right?) so you can't be able to keep up the pace for 2 years. This is basically a bet on whether the resolution will be reached through herd immunity or some other means, some drug or quick vaccine. If you do get the resolution by herd immunity anyway, you want to infect the least susceptible population and sustain the highest economic activity and standard of life for the population. If this bet pays off, you're least affected. If it doesn't and some magic solution shows up, you will have already bore the brunt of your approach and more people will have died than they should have. If you get some sort of technical, quicker solution to the problem, the you will have the least overall number of deaths and will have paid a comparatively small cost by doing a lock down for a couple of months only. If this doesn't pan out and you get my herd immunity anyway, your overall number of victims will be higher than the herd immunity folks because statistically the spread will be uniform through age groups and your economy will be in worse shape because more people had to stay at home for a longer time. It's all in what you think is the most likely resolution to the crisis and how well you follow through with your plan. I am though of the opinion that if you're to commit to a strategy, commit to it fully.

arcticbull 6y ago

> Herd immunity shouldn't be a goal. Herd immunity is how vaccines work. It's the reason not everyone needs to get the measles vaccine so long as most people do. > Think of Ebola and herd immunity for more that a second, and you'll understand what it means: herd immunity is not the only way. Korea proves it too. SARS 2003 died without herd immunity either. What about HIV? Fancy trying herd immunity? If you can obtain a slice of the population that is not particularly strongly affected by a disease large enough to achieve the same result as you would with a vaccine, it's an avenue. That's true of folks under 45, broadly speaking. You may not like it -- I may not like it -- but it is an effective avenue. It is the goal. This conversation is about different ways to achieve that goal.

arcticbull 6y ago
Ah, I see, you're of the opinion there's some way to eradicate this disease without immunization -- by continued lockdowns? Given the R0 could be 5 and millions infected, that ship has long since sailed IMO, to the extent that I don't really even consider that an option.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

That's true. The terminology has gotten a bit confused; most people who say they want to follow a "herd immunity" plan really mean "I don't think we can avoid it". Country A achieving containment doesn't necessarily mean Country B can achieve it, at least not without impossible or unacceptable costs.

RealityVoid 6y ago

> you can't reasonably desire herd immunity if you can avoid it. And that is the crux of it. Can you avoid it? If you can avoid it, by all means do it. If you can't you might as well make sure you reach herd immunity by infecting the least susceptible age groups. The ability of the population to stay indoors is limited, _especially_ if they don't see the effects of the disease (because they are indoors, right?) so you can't be able to keep up the pace for 2 years. This is basically a bet on whether the resolution will be reached through herd immunity or some other means, some drug or quick vaccine. If you do get the resolution by herd immunity anyway, you want to infect the least susceptible population and sustain the highest economic activity and standard of life for the population. If this bet pays off, you're least affected. If it doesn't and some magic solution shows up, you will have already bore the brunt of your approach and more people will have died than they should have. If you get some sort of technical, quicker solution to the problem, the you will have the least overall number of deaths and will have paid a comparatively small cost by doing a lock down for a couple of months only. If this doesn't pan out and you get my herd immunity anyway, your overall number of victims will be higher than the herd immunity folks because statistically the spread will be uniform through age groups and your economy will be in worse shape because more people had to stay at home for a longer time. It's all in what you think is the most likely resolution to the crisis and how well you follow through with your plan. I am though of the opinion that if you're to commit to a strategy, commit to it fully.