4 ms·

Currently around ~5% of the US has contracted COVID. 60-70% of the population needs to become infected in order to gain herd immunity. Meaning we're about 7% of

by nprz 6y ago

Currently around ~5% of the US has contracted COVID. 60-70% of the population needs to become infected in order to gain herd immunity. Meaning we're about 7% of the way to herd immunity. We still have a long way to go.

chrisseaton 6y ago
I don't think anyone's saying they're aiming at herd immunity any more, are they? The European and North American countries opening up, which is all of them, are just saying they have the situation generally under control enough to relax restrictions.
- nprz 6y ago
  I mean it will continue to spread until that percent of the of the population is infected. Containment is not possible. So right now it's a balancing act of opening up the economy and preventing an explosive outbreak. The hope is a vaccine will be created soon and a large proportion of the population will gain immunity through a vaccine rather than just naturally contracting the virus.
  - 0xFFC 6y ago
    Yes. Those restrictions were from the time we were thinking the virus is more deadly than this (1-2% IFR). Now with more publications, data suggests an IFR of 0.1-0.6%. Which is pretty low and does not worth crashing the economy. This does not mean vulnerable people has to pay the price no. It is trade off. We have to reopen and go back to normal, while helping vulnerable people. Even some paper suggest far more infections than we thought.
    - ummonk 6y ago
      The IFR is proving to be ~1%. For 0.1-0.6% to be true, 50-100% of NYC would have to have gotten infected with COVID-19...
      - jjjensen90 6y ago
        IFR is not a fixed value and is affected by many things. For example, intial viral load may be higher in NYC than many other places, vitamin D levels, air pollution, etc. There is no single IFR for any disease.
        ummonk 6y ago
        Yes, IFR is not a fixed value. But a range (0.1-0.6%) was provided by the person I was responding to. Even assuming NYC hit the top of the range of IFRs (which seems questionable given that NYC isn't a particularly old city), one would need an infection rate of 50%, which contradicts serology studies that turned out to be half that. IFR in other locations (e.g. small towns in Europe where blood tests show widespread exposure) has also consistently come in at roughly 1%.
        0xFFC 6y ago
        The data you are putting out there is completely wrong. You can check this subreddit for publications: https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/ All most all the publications from the past 2 months show an IFR if 0.1-0.6 or at most 0.8%.
        ummonk 6y ago
        Searched for IFR estimates there and grabbed a few sample calculations: https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/gw5l4q/serology_from_andorra/fssxqoa/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/gw5l4q/serology_fr... https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6035k/new_serology_from_geneva_switzerland_shows_55_of/fo6u5i5/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6035k/new_serolog... https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/gnbpkk/antibody_results_from_sweden_73_in_stockholm/fr92ppe/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/gnbpkk/antibody_re... https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/gnbpkk/antibody_results_from_sweden_73_in_stockholm/frad6i0/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/gnbpkk/antibody_re... So, 0.77-1.25% for this range of estimates.
    - dTal 6y ago
      I don't know where you're getting that IFR figure from. Let's take the UK: 7% of the population have had it[1], and about 60,000 people[2] have died (!). That's 1.3%. [1]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52837593 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52837593 [2]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52976580q https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52976580q
      - 0xFFC 6y ago
        You don’t know because you clearly don’t read! Two comments bellow I have cited multiple scientific papers. Stop linking fake news :)
rabidrat 6y ago
That's only if infection grants lifetime immunity. Other coronaviruses (like those that cause colds) only grant immunity for 4-12 months. We don't know if this coronavirus is the same, but if it is, we may not be able to achieve that herd immunity without biannual vaccinations.
jjjensen90 6y ago
We have no idea what the required percentage of infection is for herd immunity, given that we don't know what percentage of people are naturally immune or resistant, what percentage of people clear the virus without any antibody response, etc. There is a decent amount of research beginning to indicate we won't need nearly that level of infection to reach herd immunity. It's not guaranteed but I'd keep an open mind. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03085 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03085 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32209383 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32209383 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v...

by nprz 6y ago

chrisseaton 6y ago

I don't think anyone's saying they're aiming at herd immunity any more, are they? The European and North American countries opening up, which is all of them, are just saying they have the situation generally under control enough to relax restrictions.

nprz 6y ago
I mean it will continue to spread until that percent of the of the population is infected. Containment is not possible. So right now it's a balancing act of opening up the economy and preventing an explosive outbreak. The hope is a vaccine will be created soon and a large proportion of the population will gain immunity through a vaccine rather than just naturally contracting the virus.
- 0xFFC 6y ago
  Yes. Those restrictions were from the time we were thinking the virus is more deadly than this (1-2% IFR). Now with more publications, data suggests an IFR of 0.1-0.6%. Which is pretty low and does not worth crashing the economy. This does not mean vulnerable people has to pay the price no. It is trade off. We have to reopen and go back to normal, while helping vulnerable people. Even some paper suggest far more infections than we thought.
  - ummonk 6y ago
    The IFR is proving to be ~1%. For 0.1-0.6% to be true, 50-100% of NYC would have to have gotten infected with COVID-19...
    - jjjensen90 6y ago
      IFR is not a fixed value and is affected by many things. For example, intial viral load may be higher in NYC than many other places, vitamin D levels, air pollution, etc. There is no single IFR for any disease.
      - ummonk 6y ago
        Yes, IFR is not a fixed value. But a range (0.1-0.6%) was provided by the person I was responding to. Even assuming NYC hit the top of the range of IFRs (which seems questionable given that NYC isn't a particularly old city), one would need an infection rate of 50%, which contradicts serology studies that turned out to be half that. IFR in other locations (e.g. small towns in Europe where blood tests show widespread exposure) has also consistently come in at roughly 1%.
        0xFFC 6y ago
        The data you are putting out there is completely wrong. You can check this subreddit for publications: https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/ All most all the publications from the past 2 months show an IFR if 0.1-0.6 or at most 0.8%.
        ummonk 6y ago
        Searched for IFR estimates there and grabbed a few sample calculations: https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/gw5l4q/serology_from_andorra/fssxqoa/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/gw5l4q/serology_fr... https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6035k/new_serology_from_geneva_switzerland_shows_55_of/fo6u5i5/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6035k/new_serolog... https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/gnbpkk/antibody_results_from_sweden_73_in_stockholm/fr92ppe/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/gnbpkk/antibody_re... https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/gnbpkk/antibody_results_from_sweden_73_in_stockholm/frad6i0/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/gnbpkk/antibody_re... So, 0.77-1.25% for this range of estimates.
  - dTal 6y ago
    I don't know where you're getting that IFR figure from. Let's take the UK: 7% of the population have had it[1], and about 60,000 people[2] have died (!). That's 1.3%. [1]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52837593 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52837593 [2]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52976580q https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52976580q
    - 0xFFC 6y ago
      You don’t know because you clearly don’t read! Two comments bellow I have cited multiple scientific papers. Stop linking fake news :)

rabidrat 6y ago

That's only if infection grants lifetime immunity. Other coronaviruses (like those that cause colds) only grant immunity for 4-12 months. We don't know if this coronavirus is the same, but if it is, we may not be able to achieve that herd immunity without biannual vaccinations.

jjjensen90 6y ago

We have no idea what the required percentage of infection is for herd immunity, given that we don't know what percentage of people are naturally immune or resistant, what percentage of people clear the virus without any antibody response, etc. There is a decent amount of research beginning to indicate we won't need nearly that level of infection to reach herd immunity. It's not guaranteed but I'd keep an open mind. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03085 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03085 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32209383 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32209383 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v...