3 ms·

Also, herd immunity has completely left the public discussion. Every country that has successfully avoided wide spread infection has merely delayed the inevita

Also, herd immunity has completely left the public discussion. Every country that has successfully avoided wide spread infection has merely delayed the inevitable unless a successful vaccine becomes available soon. Everyone is guessing. 10 years from now we'll know who made the best decisions but it won't be because anyone was smarter, it'll be because they guessed luckily.

simias 6y ago
I don't think it left the discussion, it's just that it's an other grey area. We still don't seem to know for sure how long the immunity lasts. Infecting a big chunk of your population for merely a few months of herd immunity might not be worth it.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  I think a more difficult question is what happens if there's no herd immunity AND no vaccine. Will we be able to live like this forever? I suspect not, so how long will we try? A year? Three years? These are rhetorical questions, I hope we don't have to find out.
snowwrestler 6y ago
We don't have herd immunity to ebola, MERS, SARS, AIDS, etc., yet those are still diseases whose incidence is still pretty small, globally speaking. It's not true that herd immunity is the only endgame. Reducing the size of the disease reservoir, in combination with testing and tracing, is a very effective tactic that has worked against many communicable diseases. The only acceptable way to get herd immunity is via a vaccine. Reaching for herd immunity without a vaccine is just another way of saying let's allow most of the vulnerable people die; whoever is left at the end will have herd immunity. Yay for them. It's like saying the solution to war deaths is to fight a huge war to its conclusion. Whoever is left at the end won't be getting shot at anymore--problem solved!
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  Some of the studies now are showing benefits of herd immunity with as little as 30% of the locals having had it. Young healthy people who have extremely low risk can provide herd immunity for at risk populations so they don't die. But let's imagine none of that's true. Can you talk about how diseases of despair and deaths indirectly caused by economic troubles play into your analysis? How long do you believe the benefits of lockdowns will outweigh the costs? Do you believe the answer is forever?
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    Young people do not have extremely low risk: "Close to one third of young adults are medically vulnerable to severe COVID-19 illness." https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30338-4/fulltext https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30338-4/full... Even if they did, during uncontrolled spread there is no way to limit infections to a specific subset of the population. The U.S. has not yet locked down. If it had done so earlier this year, we would see much lower incidences of COVID-19 today--and a rebounding economy--as we see across much of Asia and Europe. Our nationally undisciplined approach has extended the impact of the pandemic far longer than it should have. Continued application of this approach will continue to extend the impact on the U.S. people and economy. Lockdowns pay off very quickly if they are taken seriously; most people with COVID-19 stop being infectious within 14 days of the onset of symptoms.
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      I'm not interested or even particularly disagreeing with any of your comments on the past. People with high risk can and already are behaving differently than people with low risk. That's why the death count is steadily dropping even while the case count is increasing, because young people are returning to normal behaviors while at risk people are being more careful. In a world with wide spread virus in India, Brazil, the United States, Russia and Mexico it's simply not going away any time soon. Do you believe that these countries can successfully be quarantined from the rest of the world for the next year? What about 3 years? Or is it your position that all of these countries have the political and infrastructure capability of doing complete lockdowns?

simias 6y ago

I don't think it left the discussion, it's just that it's an other grey area. We still don't seem to know for sure how long the immunity lasts. Infecting a big chunk of your population for merely a few months of herd immunity might not be worth it.

Consultant32452 6y ago
I think a more difficult question is what happens if there's no herd immunity AND no vaccine. Will we be able to live like this forever? I suspect not, so how long will we try? A year? Three years? These are rhetorical questions, I hope we don't have to find out.

snowwrestler 6y ago

We don't have herd immunity to ebola, MERS, SARS, AIDS, etc., yet those are still diseases whose incidence is still pretty small, globally speaking. It's not true that herd immunity is the only endgame. Reducing the size of the disease reservoir, in combination with testing and tracing, is a very effective tactic that has worked against many communicable diseases. The only acceptable way to get herd immunity is via a vaccine. Reaching for herd immunity without a vaccine is just another way of saying let's allow most of the vulnerable people die; whoever is left at the end will have herd immunity. Yay for them. It's like saying the solution to war deaths is to fight a huge war to its conclusion. Whoever is left at the end won't be getting shot at anymore--problem solved!

Consultant32452 6y ago
Some of the studies now are showing benefits of herd immunity with as little as 30% of the locals having had it. Young healthy people who have extremely low risk can provide herd immunity for at risk populations so they don't die. But let's imagine none of that's true. Can you talk about how diseases of despair and deaths indirectly caused by economic troubles play into your analysis? How long do you believe the benefits of lockdowns will outweigh the costs? Do you believe the answer is forever?
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  Young people do not have extremely low risk: "Close to one third of young adults are medically vulnerable to severe COVID-19 illness." https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30338-4/fulltext https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30338-4/full... Even if they did, during uncontrolled spread there is no way to limit infections to a specific subset of the population. The U.S. has not yet locked down. If it had done so earlier this year, we would see much lower incidences of COVID-19 today--and a rebounding economy--as we see across much of Asia and Europe. Our nationally undisciplined approach has extended the impact of the pandemic far longer than it should have. Continued application of this approach will continue to extend the impact on the U.S. people and economy. Lockdowns pay off very quickly if they are taken seriously; most people with COVID-19 stop being infectious within 14 days of the onset of symptoms.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    I'm not interested or even particularly disagreeing with any of your comments on the past. People with high risk can and already are behaving differently than people with low risk. That's why the death count is steadily dropping even while the case count is increasing, because young people are returning to normal behaviors while at risk people are being more careful. In a world with wide spread virus in India, Brazil, the United States, Russia and Mexico it's simply not going away any time soon. Do you believe that these countries can successfully be quarantined from the rest of the world for the next year? What about 3 years? Or is it your position that all of these countries have the political and infrastructure capability of doing complete lockdowns?