4 ms·

> ... but any amount of immunity in a population makes transmission of the virus more difficult. That may be true from a pure logical/mathematical point of vie

by TomVDB 6y ago

> ... but any amount of immunity in a population makes transmission of the virus more difficult. That may be true from a pure logical/mathematical point of view, but that doesn't mean it makes a practical difference. Herd immunity is something that happens when a very large percentage of the population is immune. For mumps (which has a very high R0), you need about 92% immunity level for it to be effective. For COVID-19, it is currently estimated to be around 60+%. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7151357/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7151357/) We are nowhere near these kind of immunity levels right now, and it's impossible to get to that level without vaccine unless you're willing to accept that a huge amount of people will die or get seriously ill. Any suggestion that herd immunity is relevant in today's environment is plain wrong.

novaRom 6y ago
But we knew it since March. Any reason to not believe Angela Merkel who says continuously it's just beginning and will last years? Now we even know there's probably no long term immunity. Antibodies to other coronaviruses last around 12 months, so COVID-19 case might be similar.
standardUser 6y ago
I did not suggest herd immunity has occurred. You seem to be confusing the idea of herd immunity with the similar idea that any immunity in a population will reduce the transmission rate by some amount.
- TomVDB 6y ago
  You’re saying that maybe CA should have done some middle ground closure since that might have help a little more with increasing immunity. My point is that the goal of increasing immunity is pointless unless it can be raised to a very high percentage and without taking massive casualties. Without a vaccine, that’s simply not possible for COVID-19. And thus that suggestion doesn’t make a lot of I sense. The benefit of a slight higher but still very low level of immunity is so small that there’s no point.
  - standardUser 6y ago
    The point of raising immunity is to (speculatively) make it easier to keep the transmission rate low. So other measures become less necessary. Maybe we could open schools, for example. This seems to be what has happened in the places that have been hit hardest. But obviously partial immunity in the population is only one factor impacting the transmission rate. There's masks and lack of indoor gatherings, etc. Though I hear in France, which was hit very hard, they're not even bothering with masks any longer.
    - TomVDB 6y ago
      Yes. But increased immunity is only useful if it reduces transmission rates substantially, measurably. And that requires a very high immunity rate. It’s pointless to pursue an increase in immunity when the transmission rate only reduces by some negligible amount that’s in the noise. In how many ways do I have to restate the same concept?
kalleboo 6y ago
In Sweden none of the studies have shown immunity levels anywhere near that high, but ICU cases and deaths are trending down sharply, despite people getting tired of social distancing (BLM protests, high school graduation parties, midsummer parties all happened with no corresponding spikes) and having started traveling for vacation. This is a strange virus, there is something else going on causing lower levels of immunity to have a stronger impact on cases than the naive math would suggest.

by TomVDB 6y ago

novaRom 6y ago

But we knew it since March. Any reason to not believe Angela Merkel who says continuously it's just beginning and will last years? Now we even know there's probably no long term immunity. Antibodies to other coronaviruses last around 12 months, so COVID-19 case might be similar.

standardUser 6y ago

I did not suggest herd immunity has occurred. You seem to be confusing the idea of herd immunity with the similar idea that any immunity in a population will reduce the transmission rate by some amount.

TomVDB 6y ago
You’re saying that maybe CA should have done some middle ground closure since that might have help a little more with increasing immunity. My point is that the goal of increasing immunity is pointless unless it can be raised to a very high percentage and without taking massive casualties. Without a vaccine, that’s simply not possible for COVID-19. And thus that suggestion doesn’t make a lot of I sense. The benefit of a slight higher but still very low level of immunity is so small that there’s no point.
- standardUser 6y ago
  The point of raising immunity is to (speculatively) make it easier to keep the transmission rate low. So other measures become less necessary. Maybe we could open schools, for example. This seems to be what has happened in the places that have been hit hardest. But obviously partial immunity in the population is only one factor impacting the transmission rate. There's masks and lack of indoor gatherings, etc. Though I hear in France, which was hit very hard, they're not even bothering with masks any longer.
  - TomVDB 6y ago
    Yes. But increased immunity is only useful if it reduces transmission rates substantially, measurably. And that requires a very high immunity rate. It’s pointless to pursue an increase in immunity when the transmission rate only reduces by some negligible amount that’s in the noise. In how many ways do I have to restate the same concept?

kalleboo 6y ago

In Sweden none of the studies have shown immunity levels anywhere near that high, but ICU cases and deaths are trending down sharply, despite people getting tired of social distancing (BLM protests, high school graduation parties, midsummer parties all happened with no corresponding spikes) and having started traveling for vacation. This is a strange virus, there is something else going on causing lower levels of immunity to have a stronger impact on cases than the naive math would suggest.