8 ms·

This story is also an example of the conflicting stories we get out of leaders? How it is possible we'll _never_ reach herd immunity? They were saying we needed

This story is also an example of the conflicting stories we get out of leaders? How it is possible we'll _never_ reach herd immunity? They were saying we needed that just last summer! That loss of trust in giving us correct/congruent information from leaders is absolutely hurting America right now

MattGaiser 5y ago
> How it is possible we'll _never_ reach herd immunity? It does not circulate sufficiently but neither is a critical mass of vaccinated people reached due to vaccine reluctance.
- kickout 5y ago
  My impression is they are moving the goal posts and saying _no_ level of vaccination is 'good enough for herd immunity'
  - ashtonbaker 5y ago
    "They" don't set the goalposts - reality does. Also, they are not saying that no level of vaccination is good enough - they are saying that the level of vaccination needed is dependent on a variety of factors, and that level is becoming increasingly difficult to reach due to variants and vaccine hesitancy. From the article: > Early on, the target herd immunity threshold was estimated to be about 60 to 70 percent of the population. Most experts, including Dr. Fauci, expected that the United States would be able to reach it once vaccines were available. > But as vaccines were developed and distribution ramped up through the winter and into the spring, estimates of the threshold began to rise. That is because the initial calculations were based on the contagiousness of the original version of the virus. The predominant variant now circulating in the United States, called B.1.1.7 and first identified in Britain, is about 60 percent more transmissible. > As a result, experts now calculate the herd immunity threshold to be at least 80 percent. If even more contagious variants develop, or if scientists find that immunized people can still transmit the virus, the calculation will have to be revised upward again.
    - kickout 5y ago
      when did transmissibility become a defining metric? There are more transmissible pathogens (colds, flu), but we don't change society for those. I was told that mortality was the defining metric (and thus the reason for the restrictions, to save lives), so if B.1.1.7 is less lethal, why would the transmissibility play in? Also why isn't immunization from natural infection counting? I've seen to reason to _discount_ it; it just seems they are looking for ways to juke the stats
      - rsynnott 5y ago
        > so if B.1.1.7 is less lethal, why would the transmissibility play in? I mean, if it was a _lot_ less lethal, and became permanently dominant, then the problem goes away. I think your mistake is in assuming that it is less lethal. What gave you that idea? It is believed to probably be _more_ lethal. > Also why isn't immunization from natural infection counting? It 'counts', but less so than vaccine immunity, because some variants defeat it while not defeating most vaccines (there's some messiness at the edges here; for instance AZ may not work very well for the South African variant).
      - lamontcg 5y ago
        > if B.1.1.7 is less lethal, why would the transmissibility play in? Transmissibility, viral load and virulence should all be correlated. Alizon, S., Hurford, A., Mideo, N. and Van Baalen, M. (2009). Virulence evolution and the trade-off hypothesis: history, current state of affairs and the future. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22, 245–259. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01658.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1420-9101... When you read stories that a particular variant increases one or two of those three and not the other, you should treat it skeptically. All three should tend to move together. B.1.1.7 is most likely more lethal, any studies contradicting that are probably not picking appropriate controls to compare against (e.g. the most vulnerable sub-populations of demographic slices having been already hit by old school D614G, so lethality appearing to fall no matter what).
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    Eh? Where'd you get that? There is a level of vaccination that's probably good enough, but it's likely in the 80-90% range, and the US may not get there (though other countries will). The goal posts have moved a bit (largely because the shiny new Kent variant is more infectious, and because it's now fairly clear that some variants can break through natural immunity) but that's the virus's doing, not the experts.
  - DanBC 5y ago
    No, they're saying there are differences if you get lots of people vaccinated quickly, or fewer people vaccinated slowly. Slower and fewer vaccinations increases the chances of new strains developing, and increases the chances of strains that are less affected by vaccination.
optimiz3 5y ago
Information about the virus and the virus itself has changed since last summer. One adjusts approaches based on changing data. Being flexible is a positive trait.
- kickout 5y ago
  Indeed. Leadership has been the _opposite_ of flexible. They stubbornly hold on to talking points and policies.
  - optimiz3 5y ago
    I don't think the story is an example of conflicting messages though. Different messages at different times based on new data, but not at a single point in time.
devonbleak 5y ago
It's not conflicting. New evidence changes science-based understanding and decisions. This is at the core of how science works. It's impossible to know everything about everything immediately so you make the best decisions you can based on the information you do have. Herd immunity is still the holy grail of dealing with an infectious disease like this. If new evidence says we're not going to reach it, for whatever reason, then you have to shift tactics to something else that may not be as ideal but is more likely achievable. While I understand that messages/information changing can cause some genuine confusion, the concept that once information is delivered it must never change and if it does then you can't trust any of it is just a wedge used to sow mistrust. While it may be comforting to have that sort of authority/consistency, anybody who tells you they know everything about everything immediately is lying to you.
- sebow 5y ago
  You're right,except the fact that last year when some of the "less-popular" specialists(not random facebook boomers) were saying exactly this, they were called conspirationists,fake news, extremists,what have you. So while you're right, the problem with predictions is that not everybody sees as far in the future as other people.Anecdotal experience is the most important factor here.While you can definitely say that you don't accept someone's expertise/prediction to be valid given current data, saying that they're _definitely_ fake news , again, given current data, is also disingenious.
- kickout 5y ago
  I have never been a 'information is etched in stone' type. It is very much dynamic But the people making these calls are unaccountable. We don't have herd immunity for _many_ pathogens, yet this is the one we irrevocably change society (in ways I would argue are more harmful to humans than this particular virus)? Nobody has a black and white information, yet our leaders are treating that way and refuse to outline off-ramps to these restrictions.
simonsarris 5y ago
Manipulating the population behavior by manipulating goalposts seems to have been intentional the whole time. From the NYT in December titled How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough? > In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. > "When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," Fauci said. "Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85." The rest of the interview doesn't make it sound any better. https://web.archive.org/web/20210212003533/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210212003533/https://www.nytim...
- leetcrew 5y ago
  that's incredible. how can a guy with such a high-level, public-facing position be so bad at interviews? I can understand why a public health official might be inclined to exaggerate, simplify, and/or mislead to get the general public to follow the program. I don't approve, but I understand why people might think that's justified. what I don't understand is how you can do all that and not have the common sense to refrain from admitting to it in plain english. isn't that public office 101?
- harambae 5y ago
  Yeah similar to how the US government (Fauci, surgeon general) initially pretended masks wouldn't work to prevent a run on the supply. Maybe government officials should just give the facts straight and not try to manipulate the public. Even if the lies work in the short run they have longer lasting effects on government trust (as I'd argue we're seeing now, a year later)
rsynnott 5y ago
> How it is possible we'll _never_ reach herd immunity? If people refuse to take the vaccine, then obviously the US will never reach it. It's not inconsistent to say that the US _must_ reach it, yet will not.
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
Downvoted. I'd like to snuff out this notion that changing your story after receiving new information is a negative thing. Research, especially on something like a new virus, takes time. We know more about the virus now than we did a year ago, so of course predictions and recommendations are going to change. That is not weakness, that is science.
- kickout 5y ago
  Agree that updating your story/viewpoint with new information is a good trait to have. However, the updating appears to be one-sided (more restrictive/slower re-opening etc.). Why do vaccinated people still need to wear masks and why are outdoor activities being curtained when the evidence is clear they are low risk. Again, the updating of information _appears_ to be one-sided
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    > Why do vaccinated people still need to wear masks and why are outdoor activities being curtained when the evidence is clear they are low risk. Because they're still collecting data on whether or not vaccinated people can still be transmitters of the virus. And when visiting a business, the business doesn't know who is and isn't vaccinated, so it's easier to just still require masks on everybody. Also, imagine if we decide to reopen, unmask, and gather again, only for COVID cases to have a massive spike, and have to shut down again. They're playing it safe until we either have more data, or enough people have been vaccinated that it doesn't matter.
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      History has shown you to be right, too! Every time we have re-opened too soon, it was followed by a spike of cases, then a spike of deaths. When will we learn?
    - kickout 5y ago
      Just wanted to reply that I am firmly against policies like requiring masks because its easier to identify compliance, it reeks of star of david on jacket mentality. Its EASY to have draconian and blanket restrictions. Its HARD to sit down and come up with more reasonable policy that balance risk and preserving some semblance of liberty.
harambae 5y ago
>How it is possible we'll _never_ reach herd immunity The Michael Osterholm podcast goes into this last week. "So when B117 came along and we see anywhere from 50 to 100 percent more transmission than previous strains, that automatically had to move herd immunity levels up to accomplish the slowing down of transmission. And we don't know what that is. I can truly tell you, as an epidemiologist in the trenches for 46 years, B117 is much more infectious than the strains we dealt with 6 months ago. But I can't tell you with any certainty what that means. So let's just at the outset say, you know, we'd all like to try to achieve concepts of herd immunity, but I don't know what they are. And I can only hope that we can slow down transmission. But I don't have a sense that by itself will ever stop it." [0] [0] http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/ep-52-transcript http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/ep-52-transcript

MattGaiser 5y ago

> How it is possible we'll _never_ reach herd immunity? It does not circulate sufficiently but neither is a critical mass of vaccinated people reached due to vaccine reluctance.

kickout 5y ago
My impression is they are moving the goal posts and saying _no_ level of vaccination is 'good enough for herd immunity'
- ashtonbaker 5y ago
  "They" don't set the goalposts - reality does. Also, they are not saying that no level of vaccination is good enough - they are saying that the level of vaccination needed is dependent on a variety of factors, and that level is becoming increasingly difficult to reach due to variants and vaccine hesitancy. From the article: > Early on, the target herd immunity threshold was estimated to be about 60 to 70 percent of the population. Most experts, including Dr. Fauci, expected that the United States would be able to reach it once vaccines were available. > But as vaccines were developed and distribution ramped up through the winter and into the spring, estimates of the threshold began to rise. That is because the initial calculations were based on the contagiousness of the original version of the virus. The predominant variant now circulating in the United States, called B.1.1.7 and first identified in Britain, is about 60 percent more transmissible. > As a result, experts now calculate the herd immunity threshold to be at least 80 percent. If even more contagious variants develop, or if scientists find that immunized people can still transmit the virus, the calculation will have to be revised upward again.
  - kickout 5y ago
    when did transmissibility become a defining metric? There are more transmissible pathogens (colds, flu), but we don't change society for those. I was told that mortality was the defining metric (and thus the reason for the restrictions, to save lives), so if B.1.1.7 is less lethal, why would the transmissibility play in? Also why isn't immunization from natural infection counting? I've seen to reason to _discount_ it; it just seems they are looking for ways to juke the stats
    - rsynnott 5y ago
      > so if B.1.1.7 is less lethal, why would the transmissibility play in? I mean, if it was a _lot_ less lethal, and became permanently dominant, then the problem goes away. I think your mistake is in assuming that it is less lethal. What gave you that idea? It is believed to probably be _more_ lethal. > Also why isn't immunization from natural infection counting? It 'counts', but less so than vaccine immunity, because some variants defeat it while not defeating most vaccines (there's some messiness at the edges here; for instance AZ may not work very well for the South African variant).
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      > if B.1.1.7 is less lethal, why would the transmissibility play in? Transmissibility, viral load and virulence should all be correlated. Alizon, S., Hurford, A., Mideo, N. and Van Baalen, M. (2009). Virulence evolution and the trade-off hypothesis: history, current state of affairs and the future. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22, 245–259. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01658.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1420-9101... When you read stories that a particular variant increases one or two of those three and not the other, you should treat it skeptically. All three should tend to move together. B.1.1.7 is most likely more lethal, any studies contradicting that are probably not picking appropriate controls to compare against (e.g. the most vulnerable sub-populations of demographic slices having been already hit by old school D614G, so lethality appearing to fall no matter what).
- rsynnott 5y ago
  Eh? Where'd you get that? There is a level of vaccination that's probably good enough, but it's likely in the 80-90% range, and the US may not get there (though other countries will). The goal posts have moved a bit (largely because the shiny new Kent variant is more infectious, and because it's now fairly clear that some variants can break through natural immunity) but that's the virus's doing, not the experts.
- DanBC 5y ago
  No, they're saying there are differences if you get lots of people vaccinated quickly, or fewer people vaccinated slowly. Slower and fewer vaccinations increases the chances of new strains developing, and increases the chances of strains that are less affected by vaccination.

optimiz3 5y ago

Information about the virus and the virus itself has changed since last summer. One adjusts approaches based on changing data. Being flexible is a positive trait.

kickout 5y ago
Indeed. Leadership has been the _opposite_ of flexible. They stubbornly hold on to talking points and policies.
- optimiz3 5y ago
  I don't think the story is an example of conflicting messages though. Different messages at different times based on new data, but not at a single point in time.

devonbleak 5y ago

It's not conflicting. New evidence changes science-based understanding and decisions. This is at the core of how science works. It's impossible to know everything about everything immediately so you make the best decisions you can based on the information you do have. Herd immunity is still the holy grail of dealing with an infectious disease like this. If new evidence says we're not going to reach it, for whatever reason, then you have to shift tactics to something else that may not be as ideal but is more likely achievable. While I understand that messages/information changing can cause some genuine confusion, the concept that once information is delivered it must never change and if it does then you can't trust any of it is just a wedge used to sow mistrust. While it may be comforting to have that sort of authority/consistency, anybody who tells you they know everything about everything immediately is lying to you.

sebow 5y ago
You're right,except the fact that last year when some of the "less-popular" specialists(not random facebook boomers) were saying exactly this, they were called conspirationists,fake news, extremists,what have you. So while you're right, the problem with predictions is that not everybody sees as far in the future as other people.Anecdotal experience is the most important factor here.While you can definitely say that you don't accept someone's expertise/prediction to be valid given current data, saying that they're _definitely_ fake news , again, given current data, is also disingenious.
kickout 5y ago
I have never been a 'information is etched in stone' type. It is very much dynamic But the people making these calls are unaccountable. We don't have herd immunity for _many_ pathogens, yet this is the one we irrevocably change society (in ways I would argue are more harmful to humans than this particular virus)? Nobody has a black and white information, yet our leaders are treating that way and refuse to outline off-ramps to these restrictions.

simonsarris 5y ago

Manipulating the population behavior by manipulating goalposts seems to have been intentional the whole time. From the NYT in December titled How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough? > In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. > "When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," Fauci said. "Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85." The rest of the interview doesn't make it sound any better. https://web.archive.org/web/20210212003533/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210212003533/https://www.nytim...

leetcrew 5y ago
that's incredible. how can a guy with such a high-level, public-facing position be so bad at interviews? I can understand why a public health official might be inclined to exaggerate, simplify, and/or mislead to get the general public to follow the program. I don't approve, but I understand why people might think that's justified. what I don't understand is how you can do all that and not have the common sense to refrain from admitting to it in plain english. isn't that public office 101?
harambae 5y ago
Yeah similar to how the US government (Fauci, surgeon general) initially pretended masks wouldn't work to prevent a run on the supply. Maybe government officials should just give the facts straight and not try to manipulate the public. Even if the lies work in the short run they have longer lasting effects on government trust (as I'd argue we're seeing now, a year later)

rsynnott 5y ago

> How it is possible we'll _never_ reach herd immunity? If people refuse to take the vaccine, then obviously the US will never reach it. It's not inconsistent to say that the US _must_ reach it, yet will not.

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago

Downvoted. I'd like to snuff out this notion that changing your story after receiving new information is a negative thing. Research, especially on something like a new virus, takes time. We know more about the virus now than we did a year ago, so of course predictions and recommendations are going to change. That is not weakness, that is science.

kickout 5y ago
Agree that updating your story/viewpoint with new information is a good trait to have. However, the updating appears to be one-sided (more restrictive/slower re-opening etc.). Why do vaccinated people still need to wear masks and why are outdoor activities being curtained when the evidence is clear they are low risk. Again, the updating of information _appears_ to be one-sided
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  > Why do vaccinated people still need to wear masks and why are outdoor activities being curtained when the evidence is clear they are low risk. Because they're still collecting data on whether or not vaccinated people can still be transmitters of the virus. And when visiting a business, the business doesn't know who is and isn't vaccinated, so it's easier to just still require masks on everybody. Also, imagine if we decide to reopen, unmask, and gather again, only for COVID cases to have a massive spike, and have to shut down again. They're playing it safe until we either have more data, or enough people have been vaccinated that it doesn't matter.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    History has shown you to be right, too! Every time we have re-opened too soon, it was followed by a spike of cases, then a spike of deaths. When will we learn?
  - kickout 5y ago
    Just wanted to reply that I am firmly against policies like requiring masks because its easier to identify compliance, it reeks of star of david on jacket mentality. Its EASY to have draconian and blanket restrictions. Its HARD to sit down and come up with more reasonable policy that balance risk and preserving some semblance of liberty.

harambae 5y ago

>How it is possible we'll _never_ reach herd immunity The Michael Osterholm podcast goes into this last week. "So when B117 came along and we see anywhere from 50 to 100 percent more transmission than previous strains, that automatically had to move herd immunity levels up to accomplish the slowing down of transmission. And we don't know what that is. I can truly tell you, as an epidemiologist in the trenches for 46 years, B117 is much more infectious than the strains we dealt with 6 months ago. But I can't tell you with any certainty what that means. So let's just at the outset say, you know, we'd all like to try to achieve concepts of herd immunity, but I don't know what they are. And I can only hope that we can slow down transmission. But I don't have a sense that by itself will ever stop it." [0] [0] http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/ep-52-transcript http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/ep-52-transcript