6 ms·

In the USA, it is estimated that herd immunity would lead to 2.1 million deaths: 330,000,000 ÷ 100 x 65 = 214,500,000 ÷ 100 = 2,145,000 That's 330 million peo

In the USA, it is estimated that herd immunity would lead to 2.1 million deaths: 330,000,000 ÷ 100 x 65 = 214,500,000 ÷ 100 = 2,145,000 That's 330 million people, 65% exposed, and 1% death rate. Keep in mind that 9% of people have suffered a crippling illness that lasts several months. That's 19,305,000 people with a crippling multi-month illness. Aiming for herd immunity is pure madness.

arcticbull 6y ago
A few key things you're leaving out. 1. The mortality rate for children is lower than even the flu, and this is likely to do with age-related ACE2 expression. This is fact, and hopefully it leads to something that can help us lower the mortality rate in older folks, too. [1] They can of course spread it to older folks, though. 2. Mortality rate among the young is in line with the flu. 3. Mortality rate in older folks is terrible, and needs to be managed, but it can be managed. Those folks, and those with immune issues can and must be protected at all costs. These three things together mean the death rate of such a strategy is nowhere near 1%. > 330,000,000 ÷ 100 x 65 = 214,500,000 Serology studies pin the number closer to 0.6%, but of course that doesn't make the decision any less difficult -- although that is heavily, heavily age dependent. What you're neglecting otherwise is the thrust of the article: lockdowns are temporary and the disease won't be stopped by lockdowns. Even under the most optimistic projection for vaccination, we may be hurtling towards the 65% number in the US one way or the other. This article basically documents Sweden's approach. There hasn't been a COVID death in Sweden since August 24th, and at the moment, they continue to see ~150 new cases per day. [1] https://www.uth.edu/news/story.htm?id=b40ccaec-50c5-465c-b2d5-a911c0344614 https://www.uth.edu/news/story.htm?id=b40ccaec-50c5-465c-b2d...
- kjs3 6y ago
  Mortality rate in older folks is terrible, and needs to be managed, but it can be managed. Yeah...I keep seeing this handwave from the "I should be able to do whatever I want" crowd. How exactly can it be managed? Basically it's "if you have any possible risk factor, you should lock yourself away so me and my friends aren't inconvenienced by your existence". Ignoring the fact (and the associated abdication of responsibility) that there's no established risk assessment beyond "if you're an oldster, stay home", and it's not clear why the many otherwise low risk are getting sick and dying. They are apparently the cost of partying on weekends.
  - xlm1717 6y ago
    "If you have any possible risk factor, you should lock yourself away so me and my friends aren't inconvenienced by your existence" is how quarantines have worked for hundreds of years.
    - kjs3 6y ago
      In a quarantine, "Me and my friends" don't go out partying packed at the bar while the oldsters sequester. Look at how well things are going at every college that's opened up. For hundreds of years, a 'quarantine' didn't mean "for everyone except us entitled shitstains". It meant for everyone. We aren't running this how quarantines have worked for hundreds of years.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    As opposed to 100% of people locking themselves away? The reality is people won’t do what you’re asking. The evidence is in the infection curve. We have to manage the society/neighbors we have not the people we wish we had. Further, a few months later everyone can come out and play.
    - lbeltrame 6y ago
      > a few months later everyone can come out and play. I'm not so sure. Governments can't admit that fighting such a contagious virus with non-pharmaceutical interventions is extremely difficult on the long run. You're just buying time for a cure (not necessarily a vaccine: drugs work, too).
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        The problem is people aren’t doing it so it doesn’t matter what the intention is. You need to tailor the public policy towards what people will actually do not what you wish they would do. Otherwise you’re left with the half measures that achieve absolutely nothing you see today.
        6y ago
timr 6y ago
"That's 330 million people, 65% exposed, and 1% death rate." These are questionable assumptions. Herd immunity thresholds seem to be closer to 20-40%: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.08142.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.08142.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v... Moreover, fatality rates are not 1%. Current best estimates are ~0.6%, overall, with a strong dependence on age: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.24.20180851v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.24.20180851v... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v4 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext#figures https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... The young (i.e. those under 30), in particular, are at almost no risk of death: https://www.franklintempleton.com/investor/article?contentPath=html%2Fftthinks%2Fen-us-retail%2Fcio-views%2Fon-my-mind-they-blinded-us-from-science.html https://www.franklintempleton.com/investor/article?contentPa... "Keep in mind that 9% of people have suffered a crippling illness that lasts several months." There is no evidence for such a claim. If you're referring to the people who spend time in ICUs, on ventilators, etc., these people represent a small fraction of the most severe examples of known infections (i.e. less than 9%), which themselves represent only about 1/10th-1/20th of the total number of infections: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/commercial-lab-surveys.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/comm... The vast majority of people have mild illness, akin to a cold.
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  I think the OP referred to the pneumonia-like consequences (weakened immune system, issues with lungs that can last for months), effects common with certain strong viral infections (chronic fatigue) and other effects (circulatory problems, thrombosis). Note that the first two categories are not exclusive to this virus at all: treatable diseases like "regular" pneumonia can cause them. The actual incidence of these effects, which can range from small to very severe, is unknown (given that a lot of cases are still missed). I've never heard about the 9% before, though.

arcticbull 6y ago

A few key things you're leaving out. 1. The mortality rate for children is lower than even the flu, and this is likely to do with age-related ACE2 expression. This is fact, and hopefully it leads to something that can help us lower the mortality rate in older folks, too. [1] They can of course spread it to older folks, though. 2. Mortality rate among the young is in line with the flu. 3. Mortality rate in older folks is terrible, and needs to be managed, but it can be managed. Those folks, and those with immune issues can and must be protected at all costs. These three things together mean the death rate of such a strategy is nowhere near 1%. > 330,000,000 ÷ 100 x 65 = 214,500,000 Serology studies pin the number closer to 0.6%, but of course that doesn't make the decision any less difficult -- although that is heavily, heavily age dependent. What you're neglecting otherwise is the thrust of the article: lockdowns are temporary and the disease won't be stopped by lockdowns. Even under the most optimistic projection for vaccination, we may be hurtling towards the 65% number in the US one way or the other. This article basically documents Sweden's approach. There hasn't been a COVID death in Sweden since August 24th, and at the moment, they continue to see ~150 new cases per day. [1] https://www.uth.edu/news/story.htm?id=b40ccaec-50c5-465c-b2d5-a911c0344614 https://www.uth.edu/news/story.htm?id=b40ccaec-50c5-465c-b2d...

kjs3 6y ago
Mortality rate in older folks is terrible, and needs to be managed, but it can be managed. Yeah...I keep seeing this handwave from the "I should be able to do whatever I want" crowd. How exactly can it be managed? Basically it's "if you have any possible risk factor, you should lock yourself away so me and my friends aren't inconvenienced by your existence". Ignoring the fact (and the associated abdication of responsibility) that there's no established risk assessment beyond "if you're an oldster, stay home", and it's not clear why the many otherwise low risk are getting sick and dying. They are apparently the cost of partying on weekends.
- xlm1717 6y ago
  "If you have any possible risk factor, you should lock yourself away so me and my friends aren't inconvenienced by your existence" is how quarantines have worked for hundreds of years.
  - kjs3 6y ago
    In a quarantine, "Me and my friends" don't go out partying packed at the bar while the oldsters sequester. Look at how well things are going at every college that's opened up. For hundreds of years, a 'quarantine' didn't mean "for everyone except us entitled shitstains". It meant for everyone. We aren't running this how quarantines have worked for hundreds of years.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  As opposed to 100% of people locking themselves away? The reality is people won’t do what you’re asking. The evidence is in the infection curve. We have to manage the society/neighbors we have not the people we wish we had. Further, a few months later everyone can come out and play.
  - lbeltrame 6y ago
    > a few months later everyone can come out and play. I'm not so sure. Governments can't admit that fighting such a contagious virus with non-pharmaceutical interventions is extremely difficult on the long run. You're just buying time for a cure (not necessarily a vaccine: drugs work, too).
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      The problem is people aren’t doing it so it doesn’t matter what the intention is. You need to tailor the public policy towards what people will actually do not what you wish they would do. Otherwise you’re left with the half measures that achieve absolutely nothing you see today.
      - 6y ago

timr 6y ago

"That's 330 million people, 65% exposed, and 1% death rate." These are questionable assumptions. Herd immunity thresholds seem to be closer to 20-40%: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.08142.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.08142.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v... Moreover, fatality rates are not 1%. Current best estimates are ~0.6%, overall, with a strong dependence on age: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.24.20180851v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.24.20180851v... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v4 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext#figures https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... The young (i.e. those under 30), in particular, are at almost no risk of death: https://www.franklintempleton.com/investor/article?contentPath=html%2Fftthinks%2Fen-us-retail%2Fcio-views%2Fon-my-mind-they-blinded-us-from-science.html https://www.franklintempleton.com/investor/article?contentPa... "Keep in mind that 9% of people have suffered a crippling illness that lasts several months." There is no evidence for such a claim. If you're referring to the people who spend time in ICUs, on ventilators, etc., these people represent a small fraction of the most severe examples of known infections (i.e. less than 9%), which themselves represent only about 1/10th-1/20th of the total number of infections: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/commercial-lab-surveys.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/comm... The vast majority of people have mild illness, akin to a cold.

lbeltrame 6y ago
I think the OP referred to the pneumonia-like consequences (weakened immune system, issues with lungs that can last for months), effects common with certain strong viral infections (chronic fatigue) and other effects (circulatory problems, thrombosis). Note that the first two categories are not exclusive to this virus at all: treatable diseases like "regular" pneumonia can cause them. The actual incidence of these effects, which can range from small to very severe, is unknown (given that a lot of cases are still missed). I've never heard about the 9% before, though.