A case for herd immunity

[jimnyc]

As to building up the antibodies as in bold, recall all the testing around the nation thus far and the antibody count.

--

Stanford's Scott Atlas Questions 'Harmful' Lockdown Policies, Suggests A Better Way to Move Forward

Scott Atlas, former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University and senior fellow at The Hoover Institution, appeared on Fox News’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Monday to explain how he believes the country should move forward amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Based on what is known about how contagious the virus is and its actual death rate, “what response seems scientifically justifiable,” Carlson asked.

“It’s actually good news the virus spreads widely and without high risk to the vast majority of people. It’s in fact half the people are totally asymptomatic,” he said.

Atlas explained that is good news because it means there is a higher chance of developing population immunity.

“Instead of total lockdown going on which prevents that, we have a chance to have people develop their own antibodies and eventually have enough people have these antibodies to block this network of progression and contagion to the people who are vulnerable,” he continued. “That’s exactly the same reason why we give widespread vaccines, to induce this so-called herd immunity. And by the way, that’s exactly the same thinking about why it might be useful to take serum for people with antibodies who’ve had the virus and use it as a treatment or prevention to those who are vulnerable to the virus. We don’t know for sure that antibodies that are produced are effective in giving immunity. But we expect it. It’s consistent with decades of virology and immunology literature. It would be unexpected if that didn’t happen.”

Carlson then asked for his opinion on suggestions that we stay “frozen in place” until a vaccine is developed.

“It’s not just counterproductive, it’s actually harmful,” he replied.

Atlas pointed to all the critical healthcare that is not taking place—cancer patients skipping treatments, brain surgeries being canceled, biopsies not taking place, even parents skipping vaccines for their children.

“We are creating a massive problem by not opening up healthcare with the single-minded policy of COVID-19 at all costs,” he said.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2020/04/28/stanford-doctor-makes-case-for-herd-immunity-n2567755

[Evmetro]

Sounds plausible to me.

[Drummond]

Sounds plausible to me.

Evmetro, don't be so coy. It's more than plausible. The herd immunity principle is (or certainly should be) scientifically sound.

The UK's Government started out with that same thinking (their scientists led the way, as they have from day one right to today). We knew there was no vaccine, and producing one could be a year or more away. We also knew that the alternative, that of stringent lockdowns, might protect life, but would also maintain susceptibility to the virus.

In all of this, there were the demands of a modern society -- businesses have to operate and people have to work in and for them, to keep the engine of the economy running. The alternative to that was, or was threatened to be, financial ruin.

In theory .. it all knitted together. Highly plausible, and a society as such, even if diminished, would survive.

But then, another very stark and unavoidable reality became apparent, and 'herd immunity' was its antithesis. We have a healthcare system (the NHS) that's very large, in fact, it's a major employer on this entire planet. Facts were clear, once recognised .. the application of herd immunity would completely overwhelm the NHS, probably several times over.

Apply herd immunity anywhere, and it'll kill off healthcare in any Covid-19 scenario. As Boris Johnson starkly declared before he himself nearly died of it ... no healthcare anywhere in the world, real or imaginable, could ever withstand the horrors of the mass suffering and death herd immunity would initially cause.

The herd immunity approach will incapacitate America's hospitals and doctors' surgeries if ever tried. People will die in their homes, all hope of help or relief gone. Maybe people will die in the streets. The death toll would eventually lessen, but the initial horrors would have to be seen to be believed.

Had we in the UK applied and kept to herd immunity as its answer, our Prime Minister would now be dead.

So, we've gone for the alternative, as so many other countries have .. we've decided instead NOT to destroy our healthcare capabilities. We instead apply an approach where the INDIVIDUAL matters, where the INDIVIDUAL receives care, and has a much better chance of living instead of dying a miserable death.

Boris Johnson is now alive and healthy. He, as an individual, mattered. Humanity won out, and we continue, now, to have stellar Conservative leadership.

Given that the individual does, indeed, matter (?) .. do individual freedoms also matter ? Well, I'm a Conservative, and individual importance is central to my belief system. So I'd say YES to that. So, I ask: does it get to be any more of a fundamental individual human right than to actually LIVE ?

Favouring and working towards conditions that greatly increase the likelihood of pandemics is surely a path that is as abusive to individual freedom as it gets. Fact: I like living. I want to continue to live. And, fact ... if a country holding populations over far larger areas than Wuhan was, does all it can to dispense with measures that fight the virus, the potential for a pandemic starting are GREATER than was ever true of Wuhan.

So, did the Wuhan outbreak happen ? What did it lead to ? Anyone ?

What will creating a Wuhan on steroids, threaten the planet with ? Anyone ?

Americans .... enjoy and revere your freedoms.

I'll try to somehow preserve my own. It goes by the name of ... 'living'.

.... Call me old fashioned ... :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

I was just reading up on good/bad of herd immunity. These were some decent reads.

By no means is this type of immunity guaranteed either. But it's a long tried and tested method, and more or less happens naturally. This does NOT mean suicide, or everyone run out there and try to get sick to reach this level. Like I said, not guaranteed. So all of the things I have been stressing need to be followed and addressed.

--

What Is Herd Immunity and Could It Help Prevent COVID-19?

You’ve probably heard the term “herd immunity” used in relation to the coronavirus disease outbreak.

Some leaders — for example, Boris Johnson, the prime minister of the United Kingdom — suggested it might be a good way to stop or control the spread of the new coronavirus, which causes COVID-19. Herd immunity is also called community immunity and herd or group protection.

Herd immunity happens when so many people in a community become immune to an infectious disease that it stops the disease from spreading.

This can happen in two ways:

Many people contract the disease and in time build up an immune response to it (natural immunity).
Many people are vaccinated against the disease to achieve immunity.
Herd immunity can work against the spread of some diseases. There are several reasons why it often works.

There are also many reasons why herd immunity won’t yet work to stop or slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, the disease caused by an infection of the new coronavirus.

Rest - https://www.healthline.com/health/herd-immunity#how-it-works


What is Herd Immunity and How Can We Achieve It With COVID-19?

When the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 first started to spread, virtually nobody was immune.

Meeting no resistance, the virus spread quickly across communities. Stopping it will require a significant percentage of people to be immune. But how can we get to that point?

In this Q&A, Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD ’07, MPH, MS, and David Dowdy, MD, PhD ’08, ScM ’02, explain that there are two paths to this level of protection—and why the fastest option is not the best one.

What is herd immunity?
When most of a population is immune to an infectious disease, this provides indirect protection—or herd immunity (also called herd protection)—to those who are not immune to the disease.

For example, if 80% of a population is immune to a virus, four out of every five people who encounter someone with the disease won’t get sick (and won’t spread the disease any further). In this way, the spread of infectious diseases is kept under control. Depending how contagious an infection is, usually 70% to 90% of a population needs immunity to achieve herd immunity.

How have we achieved herd immunity for other infectious diseases?
Measles, mumps, polio, and chickenpox are examples of infectious diseases that were once very common but are now rare in the U.S. because vaccines helped to establish herd immunity. We sometimes see outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in communities with lower vaccine coverage because they don’t have herd protection. (The 2019 measles outbreak at Disneyland is an example.)

For infections without a vaccine, even if many adults have developed immunity because of prior infection, the disease can still circulate among children and can still infect those with weakened immune systems. This was seen for many of the aforementioned diseases before vaccines were developed.

Other viruses (like the flu) mutate over time, so antibodies from a previous infection provide protection for only a short period of time. For the flu, this is less than a year. If SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is like other coronaviruses that currently infect humans, we can expect that people who get infected will be immune for months to years, but probably not their entire lives.

Rest - https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html


What Is Herd Immunity?

With the rising number of cases of COVID-19 around the world, health officials continue to work to find the best way to protect the public from the disease. You may have heard health officials mention herd immunity as a possible way to contain the spread of COVID-19.

Here’s what you need to know about herd immunity and how it may help slow the spread of the new coronavirus.

Herd Immunity
Herd immunity, or community immunity, is when a large part of the population of an area is immune to a specific disease. If enough people are resistant to the cause of a disease, such as a virus or bacteria, it has nowhere to go.

While not every single individual may be immune, the group as a whole has protection. This is because there are fewer high-risk people overall. The infection rates drop, and the disease peters out.

Herd immunity protects at-risk populations. These include babies and those whose immune systems are weak and can’t get resistance on their own.

Rest - https://www.webmd.com/lung/what-is-herd-immunity#1


Swedish official Anders Tegnell says 'herd immunity' in Sweden might be a few weeks away

Sweden, unlike its Nordic neighbors Denmark and Norway – and virtually every other country in the western world – has resisted extensive lockdown restrictions to stem the coronavirus outbreak. Instead, it's largely kept society, including schools and restaurants open, and relied on voluntary social-distancing measures that appeal to the public's sense of self-restraint. Polls show the strategy is broadly supported by most Swedes.

Scientists in Sweden and abroad have accused the country of dangerously pursuing "herd immunity" – the idea that by building a broad base of recovered infections in society the disease will eventually stop spreading because a majority of people will not be susceptible. "Herd immunity" is usually achieved by vaccination and takes place when a large enough percentage of the population are immune.

Rest - https://news.yahoo.com/swedish-official-anders-tegnell-says-104605585.html


What is herd immunity and why some think it could end the coronavirus pandemic

(CNN)The concept of herd immunity is a simple one. But achieving it? Not so much.

As the coronavirus pandemic spread throughout the world, doctors, scientists, and government leaders alike have said that once herd immunity was achieved, the spread of the virus would be less of a threat. Herd immunity is reached when the majority of a given population -- 70 to 90% -- becomes immune to an infectious disease, either because they have become infected and recovered, or through vaccination. When that happens, the disease is less likely to spread to people who aren't immune, because there just aren't enough infectious carriers to reach them.
There are just two ways to get there: widespread vaccination, which for Covid-19 is still many months away, or widespread infections that lead to immunity.

Rest - https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/health/coronavirus-herd-immunity-explainer-wellness-scn-trnd/index.html

[jimnyc]

I disagree 5,000% Drummond, and some places are on their way to proving just that. But again, not guaranteed. But again, a death sentence? Not remotely true. That would only be assuming people are incapable of common sense or precautions. It's been shown time and time and time again, and ongoing as I type this, that utilizing such and you will likely be just fine - unless you are elderly or compromised.

Answer one question - without going into ways of trying to twist it:

HOW are the millions of essential workers that are out there daily, using their common sense, using protections - why are they not dead? Why are KIDS that are working doing just fine with that stuff? Is it not suicide and/or a death sentence for all of them? How do those millions defy the odds? Masks are useless until it's someone who needs it. Masks don't work unless you have an IQ above 40 and know how to put one on (not you, that's how they're all treating us). Essential workers doing certain things will be just fine, so long as they follow those recommendations, but I will die if I follow the same?

The answers:

They aren't dead because they followed common sense, and are using precautions.
The kids working are fine for doing just that, and with companies setting up all kinds of protections.
It's not nearly suicide or a death sentence.
They defy no odds, it's common sense.
No I won't.

[Kathianne]

It is a scientific fact that herd immunity is the way to protect the vulnerable. The problem is though, that many will die when presented with a new virus. If you look at the countries from the link I sent earlier to compare US and UK, you'll find that Sweden's per capita death rate, it's quite larger than the US, though lower than the UK's. Why? Perhaps because UK dithered at closing? Sweden's citizens were very disciplined at first? The virus became better at crossing the distancing? Time will tell.

Look at what you might remember about smallpox, a true pandemic that hit Europe year after year. While leaving it's mark on survivors, really leaving marks, the immunity was strong. Strong enough that it spread like wildfire when the native populations in North America met the virus and had no immunity to the virus.

Problems with herd immunity right now: the virus is new, from what is projected 80-90% would need to have the immunity; it's not yet known and there are indications that the immunity given by exposure may not be robust and there is no way to know how long it would last, if at all. It's part of the reason there is some concern about how quickly, if at all, an effective vaccine will be found.

Now that the curve is bending, it seems like limited opening and testing to see where the exposure percentages are and when/if it's necessary to tighten to prevent a repeat of exponential rising again.

I don't think there is any one way to do the openings/closings, though I will not go rushing to fly on a airline; go to crowded venues like weddings, sports events, church, or theaters.

[Kathianne]

I disagree 5,000% Drummond, and some places are on their way to proving just that. But again, not guaranteed. But again, a death sentence? Not remotely true. That would only be assuming people are incapable of common sense or precautions. It's been shown time and time and time again, and ongoing as I type this, that utilizing such and you will likely be just fine - unless you are elderly or compromised.

Answer one question - without going into ways of trying to twist it:

HOW are the millions of essential workers that are out there daily, using their common sense, using protections - why are they not dead? Why are KIDS that are working doing just fine with that stuff? Is it not suicide and/or a death sentence for all of them? How do those millions defy the odds? Masks are useless until it's someone who needs it. Masks don't work unless you have an IQ above 40 and know how to put one on (not you, that's how they're all treating us). Essential workers doing certain things will be just fine, so long as they follow those recommendations, but I will die if I follow the same?

The answers:

They aren't dead because they followed common sense, and are using precautions.
The kids working are fine for doing just that, and with companies setting up all kinds of protections.
It's not nearly suicide or a death sentence.
They defy no odds, it's common sense.
No I won't.

I agree. There are some that are not as disciplined as others. I've been working in a place that has a higher than average opportunity to be exposed, both because of the numbers and the percentage of folks with apparently a below 40 IQ. I've been masked and gloved since the beginning. I wash my hands about every 20-30 minutes. I quite OCD about it. I've gotten better and better at telling people to 'give me space, more!' There is space to move people back, some places don't have that. Meat packing factories for instance. I see more peanut butter, lentils, and fish in my future. ;)

We have to go out, even those with symptoms recover at an overwhelming rate; fatalities are higher than most viruses, but still low. It's imperative though for the % of people exposed to increase, in order to protect the vulnerable-which will mean nothing though if the antibodies are not robust enough to prevent reinfections. (Think shingles).

[jimnyc]

It is a scientific fact that herd immunity is the way to protect the vulnerable. The problem is though, that many will die when presented with a new virus. If you look at the countries from the link I sent earlier to compare US and UK, you'll find that Sweden's per capita death rate, it's quite larger than the US, though lower than the UK's. Why? Perhaps because UK dithered at closing? Sweden's citizens were very disciplined at first? The virus became better at crossing the distancing? Time will tell.

Look at what you might remember about smallpox, a true pandemic that hit Europe year after year. While leaving it's mark on survivors, really leaving marks, the immunity was strong. Strong enough that it spread like wildfire when the native populations in North America met the virus and had no immunity to the virus.

Problems with herd immunity right now: the virus is new, from what is projected 80-90% would need to have the immunity; it's not yet known and there are indications that the immunity given by exposure may not be robust and there is no way to know how long it would last, if at all. It's part of the reason there is some concern about how quickly, if at all, an effective vaccine will be found.

Now that the curve is bending, it seems like limited opening and testing to see where the exposure percentages are and when/if it's necessary to tighten to prevent a repeat of exponential rising again.

I don't think there is any one way to do the openings/closings, though I will not go rushing to fly on a airline; go to crowded venues like weddings, sports events, church, or theaters.

They say 60% for herd immunity, and I say EFF that! I'm along with you, closer to 90%.

People WILL die. People are dying now, unfortunately. And no doubt folks will continue to die, regardless of the next few decisions. So I'm all for adding it all in together - inform and advise us. The world works for a vaccine or other medications for now. Don't take our rights away. Folks use common sense, and of course all PPE and supplies. We see how many are getting the antibodies out there and that's with things mainly shut down. I think of course that only increases, and along with some deaths of course. There is just no way around that, none. The best you can do is minimize in various different ways.

I think between herd immunity, maximum protection for the elderly and all I've mentioned, folks should be mostly ok. For example, a rehab for elderly folks or a living center - NO ONE other than confirmed tested or whatever should be allowed entry. Every precaution imaginable for their lives. Hell, if my Grandmother were still in a home, I wouldn't even go visit until I knew for sure. And if my brother has emphysema, asthma or diabetes or whatever... I probably wouldn't visit as much, and would likely wear a mask/gloves and extra washing upon entry to further protect.

It's certainly no guarantee with herd immunity as I stated, and doesn't happen instantly, so the other stuff goes without saying, IMO.

I admit I didn't know a ton about "flattening the curve" in the beginning of this. I noticed you talking of it mostly, then started reading about it. Of course it's mainly common sense to lower deaths and such, but how to get there is the $64,000 question. Now I know so much more. :) :)

Tubular petri dish aka closed environment airplane? No way for me!! Wedding? Over 10 people? I'll send ya some cash in the mail!! Sports events, anywhere from like 20,000 folks in MSG to like 105,000 at Happy Valley at Penn State? Oh hell no!! Church? I go in a heartbeat if it's in my car and it's broadcast on the radio. Theaters? I have about 20,000 movies here at home on my computer and TV. Don't like theaters much to begin with. But now? No way! I think any massive gatherings as such, folks need to not only use the things I've stressed, but perhaps think 2x depending on various factors. Not for me yet though!

And don't forget the subway systems!! And other forms of mass transportation. I think mostly fine with PPE and such - but I already told my wife that if/when they make her come back to work in the city, I may have her drive in for awhile. Just better off. Common sense.

And imagine if this were in fact to turn out to be just like the flu? Yearly shots but many still get sick. Seasonal recycling of this virus. Hell, that's why getting out information is so important. They can't very well lock people at home for years and years.

[Evmetro]

Evmetro, don't be so coy. It's more than plausible....

From an objective standpoint, I can only say that it is plausible. I am reading all I can about this, and have been tracking the plausibility of it since victor Hansen spoke on it, but I do not have the answer. Until I have all the data and knowledge on the subject, plausible is all I am comfortable committing to. In addition to seeing this as plausible, I am also inclined to agree with it. "Inclined to" agree with it.

[jimnyc]

I agree. There are some that are not as disciplined as others. I've been working in a place that has a higher than average opportunity to be exposed, both because of the numbers and the percentage of folks with apparently a below 40 IQ. I've been masked and gloved since the beginning. I wash my hands about every 20-30 minutes. I quite OCD about it. I've gotten better and better at telling people to 'give me space, more!' There is space to move people back, some places don't have that. Meat packing factories for instance. I see more peanut butter, lentils, and fish in my future. ;)

We have to go out, even those with symptoms recover at an overwhelming wait; fatalities are higher than most viruses, but still low. It's imperative though for the % of people exposed to increase, in order to protect the vulnerable-which will mean nothing though if the antibodies are not robust enough to prevent reinfections. (Think shingles).

Yup, come to NY! The discipline has done a 180 for the most part, but still some Darwin's out there that are not long for this world.

I can only do number one as I stated. I still wear all of my protections. In fact, saw a guy tossed out politely from Dunkin Donuts yesterday because he didn't have a mask on. But I am all over the place protecting myself. I don't wanna be sick. And I have folks to think about when I get home. And I DO have the OCD going and a diagnosis to go with it!! LOL So same here, still a little anal about various protections. Better to be safe than sorry! And even with all of that, I still instantly disinfect if I walk into a gas station for 8 seconds. Clean up just in case. And when I get back home? One glove properly at a time, my mask, wash extremely thoroughly.... Hell, even taking major precautions with any box/bag that may come home with me.

[Kathianne]

They say 60% for herd immunity, and I say EFF that! I'm along with you, closer to 90%.

People WILL die. People are dying now, unfortunately. And no doubt folks will continue to die, regardless of the next few decisions. So I'm all for adding it all in together - inform and advise us. The world works for a vaccine or other medications for now. Don't take our rights away. Folks use common sense, and of course all PPE and supplies. We see how many are getting the antibodies out there and that's with things mainly shut down. I think of course that only increases, and along with some deaths of course. There is just no way around that, none. The best you can do is minimize in various different ways.

I think between herd immunity, maximum protection for the elderly and all I've mentioned, folks should be mostly ok. For example, a rehab for elderly folks or a living center - NO ONE other than confirmed tested or whatever should be allowed entry. Every precaution imaginable for their lives. Hell, if my Grandmother were still in a home, I wouldn't even go visit until I knew for sure. And if my brother has emphysema, asthma or diabetes or whatever... I probably wouldn't visit as much, and would likely wear a mask/gloves and extra washing upon entry to further protect.

It's certainly no guarantee with herd immunity as I stated, and doesn't happen instantly, so the other stuff goes without saying, IMO.

I admit I didn't know a ton about "flattening the curve" in the beginning of this. I noticed you talking of it mostly, then started reading about it. Of course it's mainly common sense to lower deaths and such, but how to get there is the $64,000 question. Now I know so much more. :) :)

Tubular petri dish aka closed environment airplane? No way for me!! Wedding? Over 10 people? I'll send ya some cash in the mail!! Sports events, anywhere from like 20,000 folks in MSG to like 105,000 at Happy Valley at Penn State? Oh hell no!! Church? I go in a heartbeat if it's in my car and it's broadcast on the radio. Theaters? I have about 20,000 movies here at home on my computer and TV. Don't like theaters much to begin with. But now? No way! I think any massive gatherings as such, folks need to not only use the things I've stressed, but perhaps think 2x depending on various factors. Not for me yet though!

And don't forget the subway systems!! And other forms of mass transportation. I think mostly fine with PPE and such - but I already told my wife that if/when they make her come back to work in the city, I may have her drive in for awhile. Just better off. Common sense.

And imagine if this were in fact to turn out to be just like the flu? Yearly shots but many still get sick. Seasonal recycling of this virus. Hell, that's why getting out information is so important. They can't very well lock people at home for years and years.

I agree with most of what you've said, no surprise. I think that 60% figure is way off-the more contagious a disease the more people are needed for the herd immunity to work. Measles are highly contagious, not sure if more or less than this new virus, but high. The lower number for herd immunity is 80%, which is why the anti-vaxers are reviled by so many.

[Evmetro]

I was just reading up on good/bad of herd immunity. These were some decent reads.

By no means is this type of immunity guaranteed either. But it's a long tried and tested method, and more or less happens naturally. This does NOT mean suicide, or everyone run out there and try to get sick to reach this level. Like I said, not guaranteed. So all of the things I have been stressing need to be followed and addressed.

--

What Is Herd Immunity and Could It Help Prevent COVID-19?

You’ve probably heard the term “herd immunity” used in relation to the coronavirus disease outbreak.

Some leaders — for example, Boris Johnson, the prime minister of the United Kingdom — suggested it might be a good way to stop or control the spread of the new coronavirus, which causes COVID-19. Herd immunity is also called community immunity and herd or group protection.

Herd immunity happens when so many people in a community become immune to an infectious disease that it stops the disease from spreading.

This can happen in two ways:

Many people contract the disease and in time build up an immune response to it (natural immunity).
Many people are vaccinated against the disease to achieve immunity.
Herd immunity can work against the spread of some diseases. There are several reasons why it often works.

There are also many reasons why herd immunity won’t yet work to stop or slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, the disease caused by an infection of the new coronavirus.

Rest - https://www.healthline.com/health/herd-immunity#how-it-works


What is Herd Immunity and How Can We Achieve It With COVID-19?

When the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 first started to spread, virtually nobody was immune.

Meeting no resistance, the virus spread quickly across communities. Stopping it will require a significant percentage of people to be immune. But how can we get to that point?

In this Q&A, Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD ’07, MPH, MS, and David Dowdy, MD, PhD ’08, ScM ’02, explain that there are two paths to this level of protection—and why the fastest option is not the best one.

What is herd immunity?
When most of a population is immune to an infectious disease, this provides indirect protection—or herd immunity (also called herd protection)—to those who are not immune to the disease.

For example, if 80% of a population is immune to a virus, four out of every five people who encounter someone with the disease won’t get sick (and won’t spread the disease any further). In this way, the spread of infectious diseases is kept under control. Depending how contagious an infection is, usually 70% to 90% of a population needs immunity to achieve herd immunity.

How have we achieved herd immunity for other infectious diseases?
Measles, mumps, polio, and chickenpox are examples of infectious diseases that were once very common but are now rare in the U.S. because vaccines helped to establish herd immunity. We sometimes see outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in communities with lower vaccine coverage because they don’t have herd protection. (The 2019 measles outbreak at Disneyland is an example.)

For infections without a vaccine, even if many adults have developed immunity because of prior infection, the disease can still circulate among children and can still infect those with weakened immune systems. This was seen for many of the aforementioned diseases before vaccines were developed.

Other viruses (like the flu) mutate over time, so antibodies from a previous infection provide protection for only a short period of time. For the flu, this is less than a year. If SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is like other coronaviruses that currently infect humans, we can expect that people who get infected will be immune for months to years, but probably not their entire lives.

Rest - https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html


What Is Herd Immunity?

With the rising number of cases of COVID-19 around the world, health officials continue to work to find the best way to protect the public from the disease. You may have heard health officials mention herd immunity as a possible way to contain the spread of COVID-19.

Here’s what you need to know about herd immunity and how it may help slow the spread of the new coronavirus.

Herd Immunity
Herd immunity, or community immunity, is when a large part of the population of an area is immune to a specific disease. If enough people are resistant to the cause of a disease, such as a virus or bacteria, it has nowhere to go.

While not every single individual may be immune, the group as a whole has protection. This is because there are fewer high-risk people overall. The infection rates drop, and the disease peters out.

Herd immunity protects at-risk populations. These include babies and those whose immune systems are weak and can’t get resistance on their own.

Rest - https://www.webmd.com/lung/what-is-herd-immunity#1


Swedish official Anders Tegnell says 'herd immunity' in Sweden might be a few weeks away

Sweden, unlike its Nordic neighbors Denmark and Norway – and virtually every other country in the western world – has resisted extensive lockdown restrictions to stem the coronavirus outbreak. Instead, it's largely kept society, including schools and restaurants open, and relied on voluntary social-distancing measures that appeal to the public's sense of self-restraint. Polls show the strategy is broadly supported by most Swedes.

Scientists in Sweden and abroad have accused the country of dangerously pursuing "herd immunity" – the idea that by building a broad base of recovered infections in society the disease will eventually stop spreading because a majority of people will not be susceptible. "Herd immunity" is usually achieved by vaccination and takes place when a large enough percentage of the population are immune.

Rest - https://news.yahoo.com/swedish-official-anders-tegnell-says-104605585.html


What is herd immunity and why some think it could end the coronavirus pandemic

(CNN)The concept of herd immunity is a simple one. But achieving it? Not so much.

As the coronavirus pandemic spread throughout the world, doctors, scientists, and government leaders alike have said that once herd immunity was achieved, the spread of the virus would be less of a threat. Herd immunity is reached when the majority of a given population -- 70 to 90% -- becomes immune to an infectious disease, either because they have become infected and recovered, or through vaccination. When that happens, the disease is less likely to spread to people who aren't immune, because there just aren't enough infectious carriers to reach them.
There are just two ways to get there: widespread vaccination, which for Covid-19 is still many months away, or widespread infections that lead to immunity.

Rest - https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/health/coronavirus-herd-immunity-explainer-wellness-scn-trnd/index.html

Excellent! Thanks for the list of reads.

[Drummond]

I disagree 5,000% Drummond, and some places are on their way to proving just that. But again, not guaranteed. But again, a death sentence? Not remotely true. That would only be assuming people are incapable of common sense or precautions. It's been shown time and time and time again, and ongoing as I type this, that utilizing such and you will likely be just fine - unless you are elderly or compromised.

Disagreeing 5000 percent seems to follow the same logical reliability as seeing herd immunity as anything other than a tale of horror.

Try for just 100%. Start from there .. if you really must.

In all that you've posted, do you acknowledge that the rights of the individual matter at all ?

But herd immunity is all about dispensing with precautions. That is the entire point !! The quicker you introduce infections to as many people as possible, the quicker you achieve herd immunity, and therefore, even if chronically diminished, you do get to a point of stability, from which you can then build.

I've always said that the herd immunity principle was scientifically sound. Trouble is, it tramples on individual human decency, by deliberately refusing to recognise the most basic individual freedom there is .. the sanctity of human life. A population hoping for a stable herd immunity effect has to achieve it by saying that anyone falling outside of its parameters is surplus to the goal you're trying to reach. You say to such a person: you get in my way. Your rights are forfeit. Your rights only extend to dying, so that others may live.

What kind of 'freedom' is that ??


HOW are the millions of essential workers that are out there daily, using their common sense, using protections - why are they not dead?

Because they are acting in such a way as to say that their lives do matter. They are taking precautions. Theirs are actions that do absolutely nothing whatever to move you towards the herd immunity effect you seemingly want to work towards.

They get in your way. They think that their own lives matter. Perhaps they are believers in individual, versus 'herd', freedoms ?

Nonetheless .. since the herd immunity effect hasn't been reached, they are at risk from the virus. They may become infected. They may die, or, if not, instead cause someone else to die in their place. They have no way of guaranteeing any other fate.


Why are KIDS that are working doing just fine with that stuff?

Because it's in the apparent nature of the disease that kids fare especially well. We know this.


Is it not suicide and/or a death sentence for all of them? How do those millions defy the odds?

Just answered. The nature of the disease. The disease is exploitative of weakness, or age (mortality increases with age, so it amounts to a comparable reality anyway). Arguably, since that's so, the young don't 'defy the odds', because those odds don't physically apply to them in the first place. The biological nature of their reality effectively differs.


Masks are useless until it's someone who needs it. Masks don't work unless you have an IQ above 40 and know how to put one on (not you, that's how they're all treating us).

If my people are correct, if you have an IQ of 140, there'll be useless anyway.


Essential workers doing certain things will be just fine, so long as they follow those recommendations, but I will die if I follow the same?

As Americans might say: it's a crapshoot.

It comes down to chance. Not the viability of the mask, because if our people are right, the mask wearing is pretty meaningless. I'd say this to you. Research the infection and death rates true of Wales, UK. Then reconcile the low numbers with the fact that very few Welsh people ever wear masks.

Since the news broke of Covid-19, I've only ever seen ONE person walk around with a mask on.


The answers:

They aren't dead because they followed common sense, and are using precautions.
The kids working are fine for doing just that, and with companies setting up all kinds of protections.
It's not nearly suicide or a death sentence.
They defy no odds, it's common sense.
No I won't.

If I took all of this on board, there'd still be a problem. Herd immunity REQUIRES a percentage of your population to die. Anyone fighting for herd immunity says to anyone falling outside of it, 'You need to die before my society gets what it wants'.

To which I simply say ... I wish you the best luck in the world in squaring THAT with any reverence for individual freedom !!!

In fact, aren't you saying, even if unintentionally, 'My freedom matters, but to achieve it, I must trample on yours'.

Think about it.

You're certainly saying this for the fate of any country that has to suffer any pandemic originating on your shores. Courtesy of certain, apparently, NON rogue Governors.

Me, though, I'm just trying to stay alive. It's an old habit of mine.

Don't mind me. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As to building up the antibodies as in bold, recall all the testing around the nation thus far and the antibody count.

--

Stanford's Scott Atlas Questions 'Harmful' Lockdown Policies, Suggests A Better Way to Move Forward

Scott Atlas, former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University and senior fellow at The Hoover Institution, appeared on Fox News’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Monday to explain how he believes the country should move forward amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Based on what is known about how contagious the virus is and its actual death rate, “what response seems scientifically justifiable,” Carlson asked.

“It’s actually good news the virus spreads widely and without high risk to the vast majority of people. It’s in fact half the people are totally asymptomatic,” he said.

Atlas explained that is good news because it means there is a higher chance of developing population immunity.

“Instead of total lockdown going on which prevents that, we have a chance to have people develop their own antibodies and eventually have enough people have these antibodies to block this network of progression and contagion to the people who are vulnerable,” he continued. “That’s exactly the same reason why we give widespread vaccines, to induce this so-called herd immunity. And by the way, that’s exactly the same thinking about why it might be useful to take serum for people with antibodies who’ve had the virus and use it as a treatment or prevention to those who are vulnerable to the virus. We don’t know for sure that antibodies that are produced are effective in giving immunity. But we expect it. It’s consistent with decades of virology and immunology literature. It would be unexpected if that didn’t happen.”

Carlson then asked for his opinion on suggestions that we stay “frozen in place” until a vaccine is developed.

“It’s not just counterproductive, it’s actually harmful,” he replied.

Atlas pointed to all the critical healthcare that is not taking place—cancer patients skipping treatments, brain surgeries being canceled, biopsies not taking place, even parents skipping vaccines for their children.

“We are creating a massive problem by not opening up healthcare with the single-minded policy of COVID-19 at all costs,” he said.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2020/04/28/stanford-doctor-makes-case-for-herd-immunity-n2567755

High risk people should exercise extreme caution, take greater distancing measure further/longer. Those at far less risk and/or basically no risk should be free to continue life pretty much as before-- that is the sane , general overall approach to try to return to, imho.
As it is very low risk to vast majority, there was no need to try to stop the world, try to stop time.
Fear and panic driven by lies gave rise to an ever expanding policy of total isolation. Humanity can not exist with an true measure of peace, satisfaction, happiness, comfort and decent standard of living in such isolation.
Does not take a genius to see this.
Deliberate fear and panic lead to an ever expanding overreaction and a very harmful shutdown worldwide..
We should be examining the - why, and the --who-- benefited from that over reaction(hint power-mad politicians /governments), imho..
And this is not just me now looking back with the immense benefit hindsight, I was saying this from the very start. A fact.. --- Tyr

[jimnyc]

High risk people should exercise extreme caution, take greater distancing measure further/longer. Those at far less risk and/or basically no risk should be free to continue life pretty much as before-- that is the sane , general overall approach to try to return to, imho.
As it is very low risk to vast majority, there was no need to try to stop the world, try to stop time.

Yup, you nailed it.

A VERY low risk to the majority, and of course worse for the elderly and compromised. But 100% should NOT lose ANY rights, because less than 10%, maybe much lower, are at a higher risk.

This is the difference between America and so many other countries.... lemme ask you a question, Tyr, which other countries would find unimaginable.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

Will you still demand your constitutional rights and all other rights for that fact?
Would you fight to preserve those rights?
Would you go as far as to die for them, if it meant guaranteeing them and also for your children and grandchildren?
Would you go to war for them if it came to that?

If your rights are preserved, are you capable of doing what essential workers are doing right now, outside the hospitals of course?
With your rights, would you still know how to use PPE, common sense - and have the respect to look out for the elderly, or really anyone else for that fact?

If millions are out there now, successfully working without getting sick... do you think you would be capable of doing the same?
Do you think some should have rights because of where they work, while others suffer and cannot?

I honestly don't think other countries fully understand what freedoms are, or what was done to get them or what is done to preserve them. People from every walk of life in every country around the world wants to come to the USA to make money and enjoy our freedoms. But doesn't seem like too many out there would be willing to fight for those rights. Too many so quickly and willingly giving up rights and not caring, so long as they are safe temporarily.

[Kathianne]

I've said that I see both sides in the arguments between 'open up' and 'protect the people.' It's evolving though. I've known about herd immunity for a long time, I argued with it about the idiot antivaxxers. Protecting the vulnerable is part of whom I am. The individual does matter.

So too do our freedoms matter, not to mention putting the brakes on the ever starving power growers in all levels of government. Give them a nibble, they'll devour the entire body.

Finding a balance is the trick, imperfect that it may be.

The threat this virus presented, both by models and the reality of Italy, made the shut downs a good move. Problem with it, no end was thought through. Unintended consequences are always with us.

Funny how no one is freaking out about Sweden's going for herd immunity, even with a high per capita death rate, though lower than some others in Europe; though higher than like countries nearby.

The US has moved towards flattening the curve before any real discussion on beginning openings. NYC/NJ/parts of CT are vastly different than anywhere else in the country, though part of the curve that was flattening.

Those outliers aren't part of the 'opening' though it sounds like they are going to ease on some of the most draconian measures or face real problems from their populace.

I think there has to be a way to pick up any spikes that may be caused by people, jobs, etc., that need to be handled before they cause an area wide bump in numbers. My concern is that too many of the tests from what I've read are not reliable. I hope that's wrong.

Even assuming the tests are good and monitored truthfully, people need to use commonsense. Keeping distance from non-family members; washing hands at minimum. I'm with Jim in that I'll continue with gloves and mask when outside of my home. I will not rush to restaurants or places that I won't be in and out. I desperately want a haircut-dang hair is in ponytail, but not happening until I see where this all is going in a month or so.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yup, you nailed it.

A VERY low risk to the majority, and of course worse for the elderly and compromised. But 100% should NOT lose ANY rights, because less than 10%, maybe much lower, are at a higher risk.

This is the difference between America and so many other countries.... lemme ask you a question, Tyr, which other countries would find unimaginable.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

Will you still demand your constitutional rights and all other rights for that fact?
Would you fight to preserve those rights?
Would you go as far as to die for them, if it meant guaranteeing them and also for your children and grandchildren?
Would you go to war for them if it came to that?

If your rights are preserved, are you capable of doing what essential workers are doing right now, outside the hospitals of course?
With your rights, would you still know how to use PPE, common sense - and have the respect to look out for the elderly, or really anyone else for that fact?

If millions are out there now, successfully working without getting sick... do you think you would be capable of doing the same?
Do you think some should have rights because of where they work, while others suffer and cannot?

I honestly don't think other countries fully understand what freedoms are, or what was done to get them or what is done to preserve them. People from every walk of life in every country around the world wants to come to the USA to make money and enjoy our freedoms. But doesn't seem like too many out there would be willing to fight for those rights. Too many so quickly and willingly giving up rights and not caring, so long as they are safe temporarily.

My intention in my suggestion was that those most at risk should--voluntarily-- take greater measures--not that government should arrest, threaten, imprison or mandate that under threat of penalties. And that government should have taken more time to have gotten a truly accurate accounting of the mortality rate.
And yes, I am always ready to defend myself, my family, our freedoms and even others if need be..

Problem is we are born into inherent freedoms and rights that others in foreign nations do not have.
Thus they can not comprehend our mindset, imho. -Tyr

[Drummond]

High risk people should exercise extreme caution, take greater distancing measure further/longer. Those at far less risk and/or basically no risk should be free to continue life pretty much as before-- that is the sane , general overall approach to try to return to, imho.
As it is very low risk to vast majority, there was no need to try to stop the world, try to stop time.
Fear and panic driven by lies gave rise to an ever expanding policy of total isolation. Humanity can not exist with an true measure of peace, satisfaction, happiness, comfort and decent standard of living in such isolation.
Does not take a genius to see this.
Deliberate fear and panic lead to an ever expanding overreaction and a very harmful shutdown worldwide..
We should be examining the - why, and the --who-- benefited from that over reaction(hint power-mad politicians /governments), imho..
And this is not just me now looking back with the immense benefit hindsight, I was saying this from the very start. A fact.. --- Tyr

Problem: yes, many catching it will just shrug it off. But unless they follow lockdown / distancing precautions, the infection may pass from that person to someone else who dies of it.

But such a 'crapshoot' approach as NOT following precautions, is the quickest way to get to a herd immunity reality. Until you get there, the only way of advancing quickly to that goal is to hope for as many infections as possible, as quickly as possible.

It's a 'getting my right to herd immunity protection is achieved by having contempt for your own basic rights' approach.

It's not even that simple, though. Rushing to herd immunity will kill healthcare resources, for not only that disease, but others, too.

How are the rights of a cancer patient, for example, aided or even recognised, if all resources are taken up with Covid-19 patients ? Answer: they're not. At all.

We found this in the UK. Our NHS has had to turn away cancer patients. They are currently NOT getting care !! Even with our approach, the NHS was too overwhelmed to care for those cancer victims. Such people may be facing their own death sentences.

Running full pelt towards herd immunity further guarantees the unavailability of healthcare resources. Cancer sufferers' right to the maximum chance of survival are killed off. The only freedom such people will experience is the freedom to die .. prematurely.

[Kathianne]

Problem: yes, many catching it will just shrug it off. But unless they follow lockdown / distancing precautions, the infection may pass from that person to someone else who dies of it.

But such a 'crapshoot' approach as NOT following precautions, is the quickest way to get to a herd immunity reality. Until you get there, the only way of advancing quickly to that goal is to hope for as many infections as possible, as quickly as possible.

It's a 'getting my right to herd immunity protection is achieved by having contempt for your own basic rights' approach.

It's not even that simple, though. Rushing to herd immunity will kill healthcare resources, for not only that disease, but others, too.

How are the rights of a cancer patient, for example, aided or even recognised, if all resources are taken up with Covid-19 patients ? Answer: they're not. At all.

We found this in the UK. Our NHS has had to turn away cancer patients. They are currently NOT getting care !! Even with our approach, the NHS was too overwhelmed to care for those cancer victims. Such people may be facing their own death sentences.

Running full pelt towards herd immunity further guarantees the unavailability of healthcare resources. Cancer sufferers' right to the maximum chance of survival are killed off. The only freedom such people will experience is the freedom to die .. prematurely.

and with the single exemption of NYC, our healthcare systems never came close to being overwhelmed. Indeed, even NYC didn't hit that point. They didn't actually need the beds/ventilators made available by Army Corps of Engineers, nor those of the Medical Ship Comfort. We had more than what was needed, but it had been looking dicey for a bit.

Now the problem is that the government prevented any elective surgeries-thus causing many doctors being basically unemployed and nurses being laid off. This is only part of the reason we want openings.

[jimnyc]

and with the single exemption of NYC, our healthcare systems never came close to being overwhelmed. Indeed, even NYC didn't hit that point. They didn't actually need the beds/ventilators made available by Army Corps of Engineers, nor those of the Medical Ship Comfort. We had more than what was needed, but it had been looking dicey for a bit.

Now the problem is that the government prevented any elective surgeries-thus causing many doctors being basically unemployed and nurses being laid off. This is only part of the reason we want openings.

That's why reports of emergency rooms being empty around the nation and major losses and then layoffs as you pointed out. So yeah, VERY far from being overwhelmed. What did Cuomo want? 30,000 - 40,000 more ventilators? And had about 5700 in stock, and yet never came close to using them all and are now shipping them out to help other states. The beds, about to run out as many stated - never happened nor came close. The USNS ship and makeshift beds/hospitals. Not as much needed and the ship is bailing outta town.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Problem: yes, many catching it will just shrug it off. But unless they follow lockdown / distancing precautions, the infection may pass from that person to someone else who dies of it.

But such a 'crapshoot' approach as NOT following precautions, is the quickest way to get to a herd immunity reality. Until you get there, the only way of advancing quickly to that goal is to hope for as many infections as possible, as quickly as possible.

It's a 'getting my right to herd immunity protection is achieved by having contempt for your own basic rights' approach.

It's not even that simple, though. Rushing to herd immunity will kill healthcare resources, for not only that disease, but others, too.

How are the rights of a cancer patient, for example, aided or even recognised, if all resources are taken up with Covid-19 patients ? Answer: they're not. At all.

We found this in the UK. Our NHS has had to turn away cancer patients. They are currently NOT getting care !! Even with our approach, the NHS was too overwhelmed to care for those cancer victims. Such people may be facing their own death sentences.

Running full pelt towards herd immunity further guarantees the unavailability of healthcare resources. Cancer sufferers' right to the maximum chance of survival are killed off. The only freedom such people will experience is the freedom to die .. prematurely.

I have had to log out six times , and now finally can reply to this post!
Also I have had to do so three times to reply to private messages -all this in the last 10/12 minutes or so.

- As to your post.
Do we not do same as we do for the flu--since the true numbers shows the much lower stats as do the flu?
The now being corrected numbers give a whole new light on the subject imho.
But be that as it may, my view is let Britain do as they think best and let USA do as it thinks best.
Time will tel who if anybody does better about how to react.
Myself I know this, there has been a horribly harmful --over reaction-- to this new virus.
As more accurate data reveals (and will continue to further reveal)-- that fear and panic(intentionally magnified by deliberate lies) bore its usual catastrophic fruits, imho.-Tyr

[Hot Dogger]

the idea of "herd immunity" is nonsense

we're free human beings not chattel beings

we have an immune system for a reason

and vaccines are weapons of biological warfare

healthcare is not a right - health is a right

:clap:

[pete311]

Herd immunity works when you have a vaccine shit heads. For fucks sake. Next time ebola comes around, ya'll gonna be lickin door knobs in the hopes of a herd immunity?

[Drummond]

the idea of "herd immunity" is nonsense

Only the idea that it is an idea, is nonsense.

It's a biological effect, grounded in scientific reality. Therefore, not an idea at all, but a scientifically achievable effect.


we're free human beings not chattel beings

As a concept, that's one I like and would want to approve of.

But -- realities may intrude.

One person's freedom may be another person's dictated fate. Freedoms can be, and invariably are, relative. Example: exercise your right to hold a gun in your hand, to have bought it and to own it, and there's only one gun available at the time .. you rob anyone else of their freedom to likewise hold that gun in their hands and to exercise any right of freedom of ownership. They'd say they have that right, a right no less deserving of realisation than your own. But the physical reality in play would decide the issue, regardless of moral or personal preference.

Reality is the ultimate arbiter in life.

Or, indeed, in death.


we have an immune system for a reason

But it's not a perfect one, and in many cases is proving to be less than fully up to the task of fighting off a new disease.


and vaccines are weapons of biological warfare

... where a war must be fought, and won. Quite.

Examples: Measles, typhoid, malaria. Wars that mankind have faced, and fought to achieve victories. Mankind is much the better for those resulting victories.


healthcare is not a right - health is a right

Arguable. As someone who's no fan of socialised medicine, I can have sympathy with that statement. But if healthcare is not a right, then it's not a right that anyone can either demand or ask for.

Vaccinations are examples of healthcare in action. So, does nobody have the right to receive them, or to ask to ?

Health is a right, though. I agree. Reality may intrude, of course, and play its decisive role.

But yes. I'd say that I have a right to health. I for one have a right, a fundamental right, to not be threatened by an avoidable pandemic.

Americans can certainly say this with the fullest justification, which is why any investigation into China's outrageous creation of one, and accountability for that which must follow, is as laudable as it gets.