D
Deleted member 365
Guest
This is so alarming.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Hekate
- Start date
Avery
Well-Known Member
Nominated for post of the year
Terrible take
it doesn’t burn itself out. — are you talking about herd immunity? You don’t get that at 25%
there will be hundreds of millions to protect with a vaccine.
I might have misunderstood what you mean here. Are you saying that covid19 will be part of the back ground by the time the vaccine gets to market, but still killing people are basically the same rate?
Beer
Well-Known Member
There are scientists saying the real herd immunity # is around 20%.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
yep. Up from 1,117 from last Friday. It’s not crazy to think that next Friday we’ll be near 1,700.
It’s weird why cases are skyrocketing. My ward had a bbq a few weeks ago. I obviously didn’t attend but masks and social distancing were nonexistent from what I gather. They’re even talking about expanding sacrament meeting to more people and increasing youth activities. The skate park I drive by never has anyone in any masks. The admins at high school football games have clearly given up on enforcing masks and social distancing. The Texas Roadhouse in Lehi has packed with at least an hour long wait the other night.
So it’s a mystery why the numbers keep going up. Weird
Some do, some don't: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00451-5
I'd certainly err on the side of caution here.
NYC also released a bunch of their info about a month back: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/nyregion/new-york-city-antibody-test.html
Last edited:
are these geologists or astronomers?
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).