are these geologists or astronomers?
epidemiologists who study pandemics have it at 60-70%
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Hekate
- Start date
epidemiologists who study pandemics have it at 60-70%
COVID will be with us. When I said that by the time a vaccine would be available, that we would not needed, it was partial hyperbole. It wasn't meant to mean that a vaccine couldn't/wouldn't have some role and usefulness, just that the idea that we're pushing for a vaccine (that we need a vaccine to make COVID go away or to go back to normal [which a lot of talking heads are pushing the idea of never going back to normal]) is not necessary to end the severity of the pandemic. Would COVID still be present? Absolutely. Will it still kill people at 'basically the same rate'? Well, yes, unless it mutates more or as more of the vulnerable die from this and there are less vulnerable to infect, then it can reduce. But again when we say 'killing people at basically the same rate,' we need to have a clear picture of the true infection fatality rate. But COVID 'killing people at basically the same rate [per infection]' is going to be present forever, vaccination or not. I'm curious if the general population has conflated the idea of herd immunity with eradication. If so, people can google the list of infectious diseases that have been eradicated.
Herd immunity as a concept is discussed in a vacuum, and that's what I've been saying for months. We repeat this idea of 60-70% in the same way the religiously inclined repetitiously recite concrete interpretations of the Bible, without trying to dig a little deeper because it's so widely accepted that we don't look at the larger picture. First, we're conflating the idea of immunity with detectable antibodies. Second, you're free to find an example of any infectious disease that did not get reigned in until it infected 60-70% of a population.
Some of them. The vast majority of epidemiologists that we're being exposed to. The same thing for what we thought the true infection fatality rate was back in March and April. All the scientists [that the public were exposed to] had the mortality rate as higher than 1%, (and even 1% was being generous, most were 2% or more) when now the generalized consensus is that the infection fatality rate is 0.3% or less (and decreasing). But I believe we'll disagree on this. Again, there are a lot more variables in here than having detectable antibodies, which is what we typically do to conflate that with immunity/susceptibility.
Also, if you'd reference back to what I posted on the 18th, it answers the question as to whether these were 'geologists or astronomers' and is from the British Medical Journal:
Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?
It seemed a truth universally acknowledged that the human population had no pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2, but is that actually the case? Peter Doshi explores the emerging research on immunological responses Even in local areas that have experienced some of the greatest rises in excess...
That's not a study, but rather more of a review/editorial and just a primer for a lot of literature that's just been published regarding the issue. It's a good starting point if you're serious about the question.
BDB is not alone in this thinking. I'm genuinely curious if anyone can articulate an end-game here. The false positivity rates alone would disqualify many areas from numerous metrics. Also, when we're looking at 300-some-odd cases in the largest city in America, what value does that have? Oxford has already put out that finding live virus in a cycle threshold beyond 25-26 cycles is questionable, and anything over 30 amplification cycles is dead virus. In the US we are using 40+ amplification cycles, which translates to about 90% of people testing positive no longer being infectious (assuming they were infectious to begin with).
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
There are going to be a million conspiracy theories (there already are) on the Rona and I will believe them all. I hope this is the strangest time of my life, but I have a feeling it likely gets far weirder.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
Also, if you'd reference back to what I posted on the 18th, it answers the question as to whether these were 'geologists or astronomers' and is from the British Medical Journal:
Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?
It seemed a truth universally acknowledged that the human population had no pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2, but is that actually the case? Peter Doshi explores the emerging research on immunological responses Even in local areas that have experienced some of the greatest rises in excess...www.bmj.com
That's not a study, but rather more of a review/editorial and just a primer for a lot of literature that's just been published regarding the issue. It's a good starting point if you're serious about the question.
read it.
Where is the part that says we get herd immunity at 20% infection?
Well, for one, I didn’t say it did. For two, if you’re looking for that discussion that you missed from the link, it’s found here:
And here:
But, more importantly, it was the entire gist of the publication that spoke to the over simplification of how we conceptualize herd immunity. This conversation started when I said that it seems to be burning out at about 20-25% seroprevalence, to which you responded that you don’t get herd immunity at levels that low, then stated that epidemiologists have herd immunity at 60-70% (and joked that those saying lower must be geologists or astronomers), to which I then linked the publication above which elaborated on a whole of reasons as to why herd immunity may be much lower than 60-70% (which is essentially what we’re conflating with seroprevalence, which isn’t exactly the same thing). And it references multiple epidemiologists in that, among them Sunetra Gupta from Oxford, who’s one of the preeminent infectious disease epidemiologists in the world.
The line that sums it all up nicely is as follows:
Which is consistent with what I was saying back in June:
The problem is, is that “herd immunity is 60-70%” is catchy. It prints well. It’s easy to remember. It’s able to take many very complicated concepts and try to distill it down to something digestible enough for print. More importantly, it also helps facilitate and perpetuate a certain level of doom. But it’s a concept. It’s not a written rule of the universe that’s beholden to contemporary scientific and societal understanding.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
What’s the threshold for Herd Mentality? Especially since it just needs to be herd developed. That’s it. We just need the herd to develop it.
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
I mean I can't stand Trump but are we really gonna make him sound like an idiot for a slip of the tongue with Biden participating in debates tonight? This is where I get worried about Joe... seems the less we hear from him the more confidence we have in him.
Tonight could decide the election.
Hope Biden is drinking his gatorade and eating his wheaties!
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
It could be ugly. It shouldn't matter this much but Biden having huge brain farts or getting steam rolled by Trump is likely the only way Trump can pull ahead.
No but I do lift.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Trump doesn’t just have gaffes, he says some of the dumbest things out there. If Biden said half the **** Trump does, Trump would be leading by a mile. The questions about Biden’s mental wellness is laughable when you just watch 5 mins of a Trump press conference and rally. It’s obvious which candidate most likely has mental and substance abuse problems. That’s why I post this stuff. Because it’s hilarious that Team Trump is trying to make mental health and substance abuse talking points.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
I was referring to hamburgers. I lift hamburgers. Almost daily. I am getting into shape. Round is a shape.
Avery
Well-Known Member
I think people will wake up tomorrow regardless of who the presumed winner is and still realize that nothing has changed. Covid is still out there, the economy is still precarious and minorities aren't seeing better treatment.
If I were to guess, tonight will largely be a draw which is a win for Biden - he just needs to run out the clock.
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
I agree... just think this one was a slip of the tongue type of thing. Trump has said some outrageous ****.
It seems as if why you posted it is because we had been discussing herd immunity, as this is the coronavirus thread, after all. After a substantive post regarding herd immunity that actually counters all the previous high-fiving about erroneous ideas regarding herd immunity, we get a two-week old tweet of a paraphasic error. It's almost as if people aren't interested in scientific literature and discussion, but in how this may be used for political football.
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
I can't wait to hear how the virus is discussed post election.