4 ms·

> * Herd immunity numbers assume no ongoing vaccination -- they more or less say, "If life went back to normal, would the virus slow down or speed up?" I'd say

> * Herd immunity numbers assume no ongoing vaccination -- they more or less say, "If life went back to normal, would the virus slow down or speed up?" I'd say ongoing vaccination (after herd immunity is reached) is irrelevant to the herd immunity calculation. Is that what you meant? Though we'd obviously still need vaccinations as much of the world will not have herd immunity for a long time, if ever. And certainly the percentage needed will differ whether we assume social distancing and travel restrictions are continued or not. Personally I hope we keep a lot of it, at least a long while more. I really hate catching flu's and colds.

repsilat 6y ago
> ongoing vaccination (after herd immunity is reached) is irrelevant to the herd immunity calculation. Is that what you meant? Though we'd obviously still need vaccinations Yeah, exactly. Depending on other model factors (like ongoing vaccinations, relative mortalities, economic costs etc) the best time (and degree) to open up may be earlier or later than the technical herd immunity point. To make an unfair argument: is 65% vaccination the end of WFH, or just when we should open up outdoor dining? If we vaccinate the youngest 65%, clearly we'd have different restrictions than if we'd vaccinated the eldest 65%. Etc.
AndrewBissell 6y ago
> Personally I hope we keep a lot of it, at least a long while more. I really hate catching flu's and colds. Are you blissfully unaware of the enormous mental health and developmental problems these measures are causing, or do you just rate those as less important than suffering an occasional mild illness while you eat DoorDash and watch Netflix?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- unishark 6y ago
  More likely you are incorrectly supposing that when I refer to social distancing I mean lockdowns.
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    No, "social distancing and travel restrictions" are also quite harmful.
    - unishark 6y ago
      Don't miss the "a lot of it" part while you're at it. Because I wasn't actually thinking about fully maintaining travel restrictions either, apart from things like the better air filtering, and required masks. Though I do think they should continuing refusing people who are obviously ill. Perhaps this one will bug you nonetheless. And before you retort again to pick at what I said and why you are justified in attacking me angrily about it, please reconsider the wonderful guideline regarding responding to the best interpretation of what someone said, rather than the easiest to attack. This is great advice I need to work on following better myself.
- dang 6y ago
  "Don't be snarky." "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Please follow those guidelines and all the other site guidelines. Comments like this just tip the ship on its side. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
nradov 6y ago
What a horrible comment. The impact of social distancing is far worse than a few minor diseases. You should be ashamed of yourself.
- DenisM 6y ago
  > You should be ashamed of yourself. I appreciate your point, but please let’s keep this place civil. It might be the last one of the kind.
- dang 6y ago
  Personal attacks are not ok on HN, regardless of how wrong another comment is or you feel it is. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful. Your comment would be just fine without the first and last sentences.
dang 6y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25898822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25898822.

repsilat 6y ago

> ongoing vaccination (after herd immunity is reached) is irrelevant to the herd immunity calculation. Is that what you meant? Though we'd obviously still need vaccinations Yeah, exactly. Depending on other model factors (like ongoing vaccinations, relative mortalities, economic costs etc) the best time (and degree) to open up may be earlier or later than the technical herd immunity point. To make an unfair argument: is 65% vaccination the end of WFH, or just when we should open up outdoor dining? If we vaccinate the youngest 65%, clearly we'd have different restrictions than if we'd vaccinated the eldest 65%. Etc.

AndrewBissell 6y ago

> Personally I hope we keep a lot of it, at least a long while more. I really hate catching flu's and colds. Are you blissfully unaware of the enormous mental health and developmental problems these measures are causing, or do you just rate those as less important than suffering an occasional mild illness while you eat DoorDash and watch Netflix?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
unishark 6y ago
More likely you are incorrectly supposing that when I refer to social distancing I mean lockdowns.
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  No, "social distancing and travel restrictions" are also quite harmful.
  - unishark 6y ago
    Don't miss the "a lot of it" part while you're at it. Because I wasn't actually thinking about fully maintaining travel restrictions either, apart from things like the better air filtering, and required masks. Though I do think they should continuing refusing people who are obviously ill. Perhaps this one will bug you nonetheless. And before you retort again to pick at what I said and why you are justified in attacking me angrily about it, please reconsider the wonderful guideline regarding responding to the best interpretation of what someone said, rather than the easiest to attack. This is great advice I need to work on following better myself.
dang 6y ago
"Don't be snarky." "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Please follow those guidelines and all the other site guidelines. Comments like this just tip the ship on its side. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

nradov 6y ago

What a horrible comment. The impact of social distancing is far worse than a few minor diseases. You should be ashamed of yourself.

DenisM 6y ago
> You should be ashamed of yourself. I appreciate your point, but please let’s keep this place civil. It might be the last one of the kind.
dang 6y ago
Personal attacks are not ok on HN, regardless of how wrong another comment is or you feel it is. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful. Your comment would be just fine without the first and last sentences.

dang 6y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25898822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25898822.