4 ms·
Isn't that a different number, though? You have to factor in that vaccines aren't 100% effective at preventing disease. Wikipedia spells it out in the vaccine s
by tgb 6y ago
Isn't that a different number, though? You have to factor in that vaccines aren't 100% effective at preventing disease. Wikipedia spells it out in the vaccine section here [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
- krona 6y agoTrue but you're also not taking in to account that far less than 100% of the population appear susceptible to the virus, especially in e.g. Japan and Germany, for various reasons.
- wbl 6y agoDo you have a credible source? I've heard these claims multiple times and they done seem to be borne out by events or supported by repudiable epidemiologist.
- krona 6y agoHere is a summary of at least 6 articles on pre existing t-cell immunity. https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563 Furthermore, I know of at least 3 leading statisticians that hypothesized (very early on) that the variance of infection trends pointed to pre-existing immunity in various populations. The evidence supporting this is mounting.
- russholmes 6y agoThe BMJ is not a credible source, it is the Daily Mail of medical journals. The author of that article, Peter Doshi, has form: "I think the first thing we to review is who is Peter Doshi? And why is he so insistent on getting this data? Peter Doshi received his BA in anthropology from Brown University, MA in East Asian studies from Harvard University, and Ph.D. in history, anthropology, and science, technology and society from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Those would be fine credentials for someone who is going to teach history or anthropology." https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/peter-doshi-anti-vaccine-false-authority/ https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/pete...
- krona 6y agoI didn't cite the BMJ as the source, but nice try. The sources include Cell and Nature, but unfortunately for you that might mean having to read something in order to discount it, which you seem unprepared for.
- russholmes 6y agoThere is a more balanced review article on herd immunity here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4
- krona 6y agoFor the lazy (cited 556 times as of now): https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30610-3.pdf https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30610-3.pdf
- wbl 6y agoThat paper looks at 40 people and has no idea what the clinical correlates of the non-spike responses are because no one has any idea. You cannot take that paper and say that a substantial factor of people are protected due to preexisting responses.
- lbeltrame 6y agoThere's at least another paper detailing this phenomenon[1] so for sure it warrants further investigation. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-020-00808-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-020-00808-x
- komali2 6y agoSusceptible in what sense? Getting it and not having severe symptoms doesn't count as having benefitted from herd immunity - you still got it.
- tgb 6y agoWouldn't that be inherently included in the HIT calculation?