Delaying herd immunity is costing lives

[jimnyc]

I can't say this for certain. Nor can anyone, I believe. I do think with following all of the recommendations and it building up in addition, is likely better than being home in the long run.

And contrary to knucklehead that smells shitty, it doesn't require a vaccine. It only requires a certain percentage to be resistant to the virus, not vaccinated. Natural resistance from one's immune system and antibodies is all it takes. Would it help to have a vaccine in addition? Goes without saying, but not necessary for herd immunity like stinkboy said. :) In fact, they believe the Zika virus in Brazil was defeated by just that.

In fact, any doctor will tell you that herd immunity can be reached via a vaccine &&&&&&&&&&&& through earlier infections.

--

Delaying herd immunity is costing lives

Climate scientists are frustrated by people who do not believe in climate change. In epidemiology, our frustration is with anti-vaxxers. Most anti-vaxxers are highly educated but still argue against vaccination. We now face a similar situation with ‘anti-herders’, who view herd immunity as a misguided optional strategy rather than a scientifically proven phenomenon that can prevent unnecessary deaths.

Because of its virulence, wide spread and the many asymptomatic cases it causes, Covid-19 cannot be contained in the long run, and so all countries will eventually reach herd immunity. To think otherwise is naive and dangerous. General lockdown strategies can reduce transmission and death counts in the short term. But this strategy cannot be considered successful until lockdowns are removed without the disease resurging.

The choice we face is stark. One option is to maintain a general lockdown for an unknown amount of time until herd immunity is reached through a future vaccine or until there is a safe and effective treatment. This must be weighed against the detrimental effects that lockdowns have on other health outcomes. The second option is to minimise the number of deaths until herd immunity is achieved through natural infection. Most places are neither preparing for the former nor considering the latter.

Rest - https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/29/delaying-herd-immunity-is-costing-lives/

[pete311]

spiked-online sounds like a legit medical resource.

Jim you first, line up all your elderly family members and your friend's elderly family members and get them infected. When some die, you'll be able to sleep at night because of ugh, spiked-online's herd immunity opinion piece.

[jimnyc]

spiked-online sounds like a legit medical resource.

Jim you first, line up all your elderly family members and your friend's elderly family members and get them infected. When some die, you'll be able to sleep at night because of ugh, spiked-online's herd immunity opinion piece.

Once again, you didn't bother to read. And the stuff I wrote came from Wiki, WebMD and a few other doctors on the herd immunity.

Are you saying that you cannot reach it without a vaccine, which you claimed in another thread?

Show you worth right now Pete. Show everyone that you stand behind your words and you aren't trolling:

I will bet you $500 cash or paypal, you decide who intervenes - and show us how it can only be reached via vaccine. Do so and the $$$ is yours.

[Kathianne]

I can't say this for certain. Nor can anyone, I believe. I do think with following all of the recommendations and it building up in addition, is likely better than being home in the long run.

And contrary to knucklehead that smells shitty, it doesn't require a vaccine. It only requires a certain percentage to be resistant to the virus, not vaccinated. Natural resistance from one's immune system and antibodies is all it takes. Would it help to have a vaccine in addition? Goes without saying, but not necessary for herd immunity like stinkboy said. :) In fact, they believe the Zika virus in Brazil was defeated by just that.

In fact, any doctor will tell you that herd immunity can be reached via a vaccine &&&&&&&&&&&& through earlier infections.

--

Delaying herd immunity is costing lives

Climate scientists are frustrated by people who do not believe in climate change. In epidemiology, our frustration is with anti-vaxxers. Most anti-vaxxers are highly educated but still argue against vaccination. We now face a similar situation with ‘anti-herders’, who view herd immunity as a misguided optional strategy rather than a scientifically proven phenomenon that can prevent unnecessary deaths.

Because of its virulence, wide spread and the many asymptomatic cases it causes, Covid-19 cannot be contained in the long run, and so all countries will eventually reach herd immunity. To think otherwise is naive and dangerous. General lockdown strategies can reduce transmission and death counts in the short term. But this strategy cannot be considered successful until lockdowns are removed without the disease resurging.

The choice we face is stark. One option is to maintain a general lockdown for an unknown amount of time until herd immunity is reached through a future vaccine or until there is a safe and effective treatment. This must be weighed against the detrimental effects that lockdowns have on other health outcomes. The second option is to minimise the number of deaths until herd immunity is achieved through natural infection. Most places are neither preparing for the former nor considering the latter.

Rest - https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/29/delaying-herd-immunity-is-costing-lives/

Once again I find myself in the middle of this, both sides have merit. I think a middle ground may be what needs to happen.

There's so many 'IFs,' which truly is the problem.

Herd immunity is a fact-when exposure results in antibodies that prevent immunity to the disease with any further contact. The problem with arguing FOR it in this case though, must be tempered with what has been found with this particular virus. 1. So far there are concerns with the antibodies being robust enough to provide said immunity and how long these antibodies would be/or not be effective to provide protection against reinfection. 2. The very contagious nature of the virus would require it is hypothesized, at least 80-90% of the population to provide herd immunity to the remainder of the vulnerable.

In certain areas that have been hard hit, like NYC, the percentage of exposed by antibodies is currently at best at 25% or so. In other areas that have not had hot spots, as low as 2%. Then there seems to be the problem of the different strains, like CA having the China virus; NYC and east, the Italian/European strain. Since it seems the China one would be the more original or even original, it would seem those with NY strain might have antibodies that would protect them, if those antibodies are effective; but those with the China strain might not have the same protection if exposed to someone with European/Italian strain?

I guess that is why that while I'm in favor of opening up, my reliance solely on building herd immunity to this 'new' virus might be a step too far. I think we SHOULD work at building possible immunity through exposure, but be ready to accept more stringent suggestions to pull back if there is a flare up in an area. Hopefully that would mitigate the deaths and slow exponential growth if resurgence seems to be happening.

[Kathianne]

More to come on this, but Fauci is now on news about a worldwide random testing and placebos that started in Feb and report results came in April 27, there does appear to be medical prescriptions that helped in recovery from virus. First real test that they have results for. This seems to be a big deal, a real door opener.

[Kathianne]

Here's some more:

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/04/29/gilead-suspense-positive-data-trial-remdesivir-coronavirus-patients-faucis-agency-coming-today/

Gilead Suspense: “Positive Data” From Trial Of Remdesivir On Coronavirus Patients By Fauci’s Agency Is Coming Today; Update: Fauci Reveals Results; Update: Video

ALLAHPUNDITPosted at 11:31 am on April 29, 2020


We’re ping-ponging between good and bad news about this drug. Two weeks ago the results leaked from a study of remdesivir at the University of Chicago (https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/04/16/hope-severely-ill-patients-chicago-hospital-showed-rapid-recovery-receiving-gileads-experimental-antiviral-drug/), with the head researcher touting wonderful outcomes. But some scientists were skeptical (https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/04/17/harvard-doctor-slow-roll-miracle-drug-remdesivir/), noting that that wasn’t a clinical trial. Clinical trials have control groups; the Chicago study had none, so it was impossible to say if patients who recovered did so because of the drug or irrespective (or in spite) of it.

SEE ALSO: Romney: The first phase of this coronavirus response wasn’t a great moment of American leadership (https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/04/29/romney-first-phase-coronavirus-response-wasnt-great-moment-american-leadership/)
Then came news that a clinical trial conducted in China showed no benefit from remdesivir (https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/04/23/flop-data-first-randomized-clinical-trial-suggests-gileads-miracle-drug-remdesivir-bust/), with a slightly higher mortality rate among patients who received it than among those who didn’t. Gilead piped up afterward to say that we shouldn’t draw conclusions from that trial since it was stopped early, with too few patients enrolled. What’s more, the company added, “trends in the data suggest a potential benefit for remdesivir, particularly among patients treated early in disease.” But they didn’t say which data.





Is this it? (https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/29/gilead-says-critical-study-of-covid-19-drug-shows-patients-are-responding-to-treatment/)
There are two studies of remdesivir out today — or rather, there will be soon. One comes from Gilead itself and looked at whether a longer course of treatment with the drug (10 days) might have greater benefits than a shorter course (five days). Interestingly, the answer was no. Five days may be enough for maximum impact. But that study comes with a caveat: It too lacked a control group. The other study, which hasn’t been released yet, is newsier. That one was conducted by Anthony Fauci’s agency, the NIAID, and it did involve a control group. Gilead isn’t spilling the beans about the results but they’re clearly encouraged by the findings. The NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/health/gilead-remdesivir-coronavirus.html) reports that NIAID expects to make an announcement later today … possibly at the daily White House coronavirus task force briefing (https://twitter.com/owermohle/status/1255500601804435457). Is Fauci himself going to do it?
Gotta think the results are pretty happy if he’s going to front them personally on national television. Until then, here’s what we know:


A government-run study of Gilead’s remdesivir, perhaps the most closely watched experimental drug to treat the novel coronavirus, showed that the medicine is effective against Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus…

[T]he NIAID study, which was not expected to be released so soon, was by far the most important and rigorously designed test of remdesivir in Covid-19. The study compared remdesivir to placebo in 800 patients, with neither patients nor physicians knowing who got the drug instead of a placebo, meaning that unconscious biases will not affect the conclusions.

The main goal of the study is the time until patients improve, with different measures of improvement depending on how sick they were to begin with. While the result means that the drug helps patients improve faster, it is not possible to say how dramatic those improvements are.



A drug that helps patients with mild cases recover faster would be useful even if it ends up having little or no impact on fatalities in more severe cases. Faster recoveries for mild cases mean more hospital capacity and less time spent out of work for those who are sick. But a drug that helped patients with mild cases recover faster *and* meaningfully reduced fatalities would be momentous potentially. That’s what I want to hear from Fauci: Is there evidence that early treatment with remdesivir prevented mild cases from becoming severe ones? How did it fare on cases that were already severe?

I hope the staff at Stat isn’t overhyping it:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1249047351022551047/CZo2ucSn_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/adamfeuerstein)Adam Feuerstein

(https://twitter.com/adamfeuerstein)Today, the world gets the first real sign that a new medicine, remdesivir from Gilead Sciences, will help the world emerge from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Pretty awesome.
985 (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1255479251945566208)
5:49 AM - Apr 29, 2020 (https://twitter.com/adamfeuerstein/status/1255479251945566208)
Twitter Ads info and privacy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256)

347 people are talking about this (https://twitter.com/adamfeuerstein/status/1255479251945566208)

(https://twitter.com/adamfeuerstein/status/1255479251945566208)As for Gilead’s own study, Politico (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/29/gilead-coronavirus-remdesivir-220484) has details:


Gilead released its own study results this morning suggesting that severely ill patients receiving five days of remdesivir fared just as well as patients receiving a 10-day dosing regimen. More than half of both dosing groups were discharged from the hospital within two weeks of beginning their medication.

Eight percent of people in the five-day group died while 11 percent in the 10-day group died. But another 10 percent in the longer dosing arm had to discontinue treatment because of serious side effects, and the study lacked a control group.

Gilead said the data also suggests that people who received remdesivir early in their infection seemed to fare better than those that received it later.



A short hospital stay may work as well as a longer one (if not better) to benefit from the drug, which is great news if it holds up in a randomized clinical trial. On the other hand, as far as I know, remdesivir is administered only via IV. There’s no scenario in which people contract the virus, fill a prescription at CVS, and then pop it as a pill for a week to get better. It’s a drug for those whose symptoms have already reached a point of sufficient severity that they need medical assistance. But that doesn’t mean it won’t end up saving a lot of lives if it works.

The FDA is ready to move quickly:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/791618485621325824/wBeu2-6V_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/megtirrell)Meg Tirrell
✔@megtirrell
(https://twitter.com/megtirrell)
As former FDA Commissioner ⁦@ScottGottliebMD (https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD)⁩ suggests FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for Gilead’s remdesivir could be immediate, FDA says in emailed statement:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWx6AEtXYBEB4Le?format=jpg&name=900x900 (https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1255512542262235137/photo/1)
31 (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1255512542262235137)
8:01 AM - Apr 29, 2020 (https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1255512542262235137)
Twitter Ads info and privacy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256)



See Meg Tirrell's other Tweets


(https://twitter.com/megtirrell)Scott Gottlieb is still holding out hope for antibody treatments (https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1255494829288669184) as a potential silver bullet against COVID-19 more so than remdesivir but we’ll take anything we can get in the meantime that might make economic activity less life-threatening. As for why remdesivir is being so closely watched, I found this piece enlightening (https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/04/24/why-failure-remderivir-deeply-disturbing-14743). It’s not just that the drug might be available near-term, to make an immediate impact on the epidemic. It’s the fact that scientists believe it *should* work on coronavirus because of how it functions. It successfully inhibits replication of viruses in the lab. It successfully inhibits replication of viruses in monkeys. If it doesn’t successfully inhibit replication of COVID-19 in humans, researchers will be left at a loss for how to deal with the virus: “If remdesivir fails what in the world is going to succeed? The malaria drugs never had a chance from the get-go. The AIDS drugs were a stretch, but everything about remdesivir makes sense, except the outcome.” The “outcome” referred to was the incomplete Chinese trial I mentioned up above. Sounds like today’s outcome will be better.
Update: Fauci’s previewing the results of the NIAID trial at today’s pool with reporters. The improvements with remdesivir seem pretty modest to my untrained eye, but he sounds excited.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/791618485621325824/wBeu2-6V_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/megtirrell)Meg Tirrell
✔@megtirrell
(https://twitter.com/megtirrell)

(https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1255529371227561988)Dr Fauci shared some details from the NIAID remdesivir study just now in the Oval Office, per pool report:

Primary endpoint of trial was time to improvement-
11 days on remdesivir vs 15 days on placebo
Fauci: “quite good news”

112 (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1255529371227561988)
9:08 AM - Apr 29, 2020 (https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1255529371227561988)
Twitter Ads info and privacy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256)
85 people are talking about this (https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1255529371227561988)

(https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1255529371227561988)

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/791618485621325824/wBeu2-6V_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/megtirrell)Meg Tirrell
✔@megtirrell
(https://twitter.com/megtirrell)· 1h

(https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1255529659284049920)Replying to @megtirrell (https://twitter.com/_/status/1255529371227561988)
Fauci also cites mortality rate that trended better in NIAID remdesivir study: 8% vs 11%

Fauci: “When you know a drug works, you have to let people in the placebo group know so they can take it.”

Compares to when HIV drugs were first found

(Per pool report)





https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/791618485621325824/wBeu2-6V_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/megtirrell)Meg Tirrell
✔@megtirrell
(https://twitter.com/megtirrell)
Fauci, per WH pool report, of remdesivir based on NIAID trial results: “This will be the standard of care.”

Fauci: Remdesivir has a “clear-cut, positive effect in diminishing time to recover.”

Never reported trial results from pool report of WH remarks. Another #COVID19 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/COVID19?src=hash) first!

70 (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1255530136360927232)
9:11 AM - Apr 29, 2020 (https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1255530136360927232)
Twitter Ads info and privacy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256)
21 people are talking about this (https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1255530136360927232)


(https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1255530136360927232)It’s better than nothing, adds Scott Gottlieb:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/939996832574435329/cQICPkCh_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD)Scott Gottlieb, MD
✔@ScottGottliebMD
(https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD)· 1h

(https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1255529719681953792)Fauci just read out some of the top line results from the randomized, placebo controlled NIAID study. It is this study people that we were focused on, and it is the news that the drug met the primary endpoint in this trial that triggered the positive reaction this morning. 1/2 https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/1255529227966955523 … (https://t.co/g3qQoSIgDd)
Mark Knoller
✔@markknoller


Fauci says Gilead reports the anti-viral reduced duration of COVID-19 from 15 to 11 days. "A drug can block this virus," said Fauci about the results of the drug trial. He says the mortality rate also fell from 11% to 8%. He calls the improvement "very important."

(https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/1255529227966955523)


https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/939996832574435329/cQICPkCh_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD)Scott Gottlieb, MD
✔@ScottGottliebMD
(https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD)
The open label studies are helpful, they add to totality of data and broaden safety database. Conducting them was better than giving drug away with no protocol. It allowed us to collect information. The NIAID study is the key though. This isn' a home run drug, but appears active.
117 (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1255530429588914176)
9:12 AM - Apr 29, 2020 (https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1255530429588914176)
Twitter Ads info and privacy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256)
33 people are talking about this (https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1255530429588914176)

(https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1255530429588914176)Update: Here’s the video.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1108426393287868423/CyLn5GVQ_bigger.png (https://twitter.com/NBCNews)NBC News
✔@NBCNews
(https://twitter.com/NBCNews)
Dr. Fauci speaks on the clinical trial for potential coronavirus treatment drug remdesivir:

“What it has proven is that a drug can block this virus ... This drug happens to be blocking an enzyme that the virus uses."


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWyUmVNXgAUrDad?format=jpg&name=900x900 (https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1255541788154224641)





752 (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1255541788154224641)
9:57 AM - Apr 29, 2020 (https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1255541788154224641)
Twitter Ads info and privacy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256)





491 people are talking about this


(https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1255541788154224641)

[jimnyc]

Once again I find myself in the middle of this, both sides have merit. I think a middle ground may be what needs to happen.

There's so many 'IFs,' which truly is the problem.

Herd immunity is a fact-when exposure results in antibodies that prevent immunity to the disease with any further contact. The problem with arguing FOR it in this case though, must be tempered with what has been found with this particular virus. 1. So far there are concerns with the antibodies being robust enough to provide said immunity and how long these antibodies would be/or not be effective to provide protection against reinfection. 2. The very contagious nature of the virus would require it is hypothesized, at least 80-90% of the population to provide herd immunity to the remainder of the vulnerable.

In certain areas that have been hard hit, like NYC, the percentage of exposed by antibodies is currently at best at 25% or so. In other areas that have not had hot spots, as low as 2%. Then there seems to be the problem of the different strains, like CA having the China virus; NYC and east, the Italian/European strain. Since it seems the China one would be the more original or even original, it would seem those with NY strain might have antibodies that would protect them, if those antibodies are effective; but those with the China strain might not have the same protection if exposed to someone with European/Italian strain?

I guess that is why that while I'm in favor of opening up, my reliance solely on building herd immunity to this 'new' virus might be a step too far. I think we SHOULD work at building possible immunity through exposure, but be ready to accept more stringent suggestions to pull back if there is a flare up in an area. Hopefully that would mitigate the deaths and slow exponential growth if resurgence seems to be happening.

That's why I'm still raising my eyebrows at the so many doctors out there today claiming that about 60% is the desired percentage. No way! Maybe with a vaccine in addition, but other than that, like yet many other doctors, are realistic and state between 85-95%, makes much more sense to me. Hell, even a vaccine isn't guaranteed, which is another reason why I think this can help, perhaps the others. I dunno.

Reading some, I see that apparently the flu shots, reduce your odds of getting the flu by 60%. But even that is different strokes for different folks. And of course we already know many compromised cannot use it, nor babies and many elderly.

Honestly, not sure about how I feel either way, just yet. I'm no doc and learning a lot throughout all of this. But mainly, you know, I like to collect articles and post them, especially headline worthy or if I feel others will have an interest. But then I shared, folks discuss - but then something starts to smell badly. And this is online, so we really shouldn't smell anything. But I do anyway, and he ain't too bright. He's the one who tries claiming as if herd immunity won't even work without a vaccine, and of course ignores what he wants to as well, including how it's happened before.

They state that even with the measles, the herd immunity levels were quite helpful. But then like I mentioned with Zika virus.

By no means perfection, nor better than a vaccine, but it does help, but it's not miraculous either. People will die - either way.

[jimnyc]

Dr. Fauci speaks on the clinical trial for potential coronavirus treatment drug remdesivir:

“What it has proven is that a drug can block this virus ... This drug happens to be blocking an enzyme that the virus uses."

I know many disagree, but I think they should have tried this more often, and same with the hydroxychloriquine, by a doctor of course and under observation. Perhaps for folks nearing death. What's it going to do, kill them?

But this one is getting better and better.

[Kathianne]

That's why I'm still raising my eyebrows at the so many doctors out there today claiming that about 60% is the desired percentage. No way! Maybe with a vaccine in addition, but other than that, like yet many other doctors, are realistic and state between 85-95%, makes much more sense to me. Hell, even a vaccine isn't guaranteed, which is another reason why I think this can help, perhaps the others. I dunno.

Reading some, I see that apparently the flu shots, reduce your odds of getting the flu by 60%. But even that is different strokes for different folks. And of course we already know many compromised cannot use it, nor babies and many elderly.

Honestly, not sure about how I feel either way, just yet. I'm no doc and learning a lot throughout all of this. But mainly, you know, I like to collect articles and post them, especially headline worthy or if I feel others will have an interest. But then I shared, folks discuss - but then something starts to smell badly. And this is online, so we really shouldn't smell anything. But I do anyway, and he ain't too bright. He's the one who tries claiming as if herd immunity won't even work without a vaccine, and of course ignores what he wants to as well, including how it's happened before.

They state that even with the measles, the herd immunity levels were quite helpful. But then like I mentioned with Zika virus.

By no means perfection, nor better than a vaccine, but it does help, but it's not miraculous either. People will die - either way.

Vaccines or the natural formation of antibodies through exposure give the herd immunity. The injection of live virus is what a vaccine is. Without vaccine, herd immunity would need to be obtained by contracting the virus, whether symptomatic or not. The antibodies produced through exposure, if robust, would then provide protection. At a certain level, whatever that may be, the population would have reached, 'herd immunity,' the virus would no longer be able to find a host, thus protecting those who could not take the vaccine, if available; or those who had not had the exposure to make antibodies.

[jimnyc]

Vaccines or the natural formation of antibodies through exposure give the herd immunity. The injection of live virus is what a vaccine is. Without vaccine, herd immunity would need to be obtained by contracting the virus, whether symptomatic or not. The antibodies produced through exposure, if robust, would then provide protection. At a certain level, whatever that may be, the population would have reached, 'herd immunity,' the virus would no longer be able to find a host, thus protecting those who could not take the vaccine, if available; or those who had not had the exposure to make antibodies.

Kinda what I said, you know, but in a legible and intelligent manner instead. :)

[hjmick]

spiked-online sounds like a legit medical resource.

Jim you first, line up all your elderly family members and your friend's elderly family members and get them infected. When some die, you'll be able to sleep at night because of ugh, spiked-online's herd immunity opinion piece.


Hey smart guy, the author of the "opinion piece:" Martin Kulldorff is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.


And from where did you get your medical degree?

[Black Diamond]

Hey smart guy, the author of the "opinion piece:" Martin Kulldorff is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.


And from where did you get your medical degree?

CrackerJack box?

[Kathianne]

Kinda what I said, you know, but in a legible and intelligent manner instead. :)
I got confused, I thought you were saying that herd immunity needed both. They don't.

In a sense, that statement would seem to be in agreement with Drummond's long ago regarding the antivaxxers. It's not. Indeed it speaks to the efficacy of vaccines, as so many are now without any natural immunity without vaccine, that the % protected has dropped below herd immunity.

Vaccine is good, indeed it can bring about herd immunity without the death and illness that happens without it, for the population to build natural immunity.

This is why antivaxxers are a plague upon us all.

[jimnyc]

Hey smart guy, the author of the "opinion piece:" Martin Kulldorff is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.


And from where did you get your medical degree?

Ahhh, didn't catch that! Like I said, if at most, he'll read a headline and the first sentence. But I'd bet he only reads a headline here before hitting the reply button, without reading at all. It's beyond obvious at times that he's clueless.

And he will also NEVER address any proven facts within, links to even CNN and MSNBC can be in there, and he either wouldn't know that, or it may get in the way of his trolling.

[jimnyc]

I got confused, I thought you were saying that herd immunity needed both. They don't.

In a sense, that statement would seem to be in agreement with Drummond's long ago regarding the antivaxxers. It's not. Indeed it speaks to the efficacy of vaccines, as so many are now without any natural immunity without vaccine, that the % protected has dropped below herd immunity.

Vaccine is good, indeed it can bring about herd immunity without the death and illness that happens without it, for the population to build natural immunity.

This is why antivaxxers are a plague upon us all.

No ma'am, just the opposite, that it can happen either way. It was Einstein aka Smellyboy that was claiming we are "stupid fucks" because we didn't know it REQUIRED a vaccine.

[Kathianne]

Because we really could use some more good news:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1255550542295764996?s=20

[hjmick]

Martin Kulldorff, PhD Harvard Medical School (https://www.dfhcc.harvard.edu/insider/member-detail/member/martin-kulldorff-phd/)

[Drummond]

spiked-online sounds like a legit medical resource.

Jim you first, line up all your elderly family members and your friend's elderly family members and get them infected. When some die, you'll be able to sleep at night because of ugh, spiked-online's herd immunity opinion piece.

I see you're wearing your 'I'm An Appalling Turd' hat once more, there, Pete. Do yourself a favour. Try not to superglue it to your head.

Now, isn't this why people should be voting for the Left in droves ? Their humanity is second to none ! You can always trust them to show decency, sensitivity, and never to be exploitative of others for the sake of pushing their anti-individualist agenda.

A quick dose of outright respect for individual feeling would do you the world of good. It'd be like a vaccine targeted at your Leftieism infection, of which you've obviously copped a mega-large dose.

Threads such as this have a general purpose, concerned with discussing what's the best way forward to defeat a disgustingly pernicious disease. People may disagree on approach, and detail facilitating the application of that approach, but the aim is shared throughout ... the defeat of the disease out there, so we can all move on from it.

All you can do is use it all to demonstrate to us your sheer ugliness of mind.

[Drummond]

I got confused, I thought you were saying that herd immunity needed both. They don't.

In a sense, that statement would seem to be in agreement with Drummond's long ago regarding the antivaxxers. It's not. Indeed it speaks to the efficacy of vaccines, as so many are now without any natural immunity without vaccine, that the % protected has dropped below herd immunity.

Vaccine is good, indeed it can bring about herd immunity without the death and illness that happens without it, for the population to build natural immunity.

This is why antivaxxers are a plague upon us all.

For me, it's all about realism. The vaccine case I'd argue where Covid is concerned is exactly the opposite of what it'd be for measles. Covid-19 is new and has (and is busily demonstrating) an ability to mete out a devastating effect on humanity. Until we can know we can properly control (eradicate ?) this threat, you do whatever it'll take to defeat it. That, to my mind, could include compulsory vaccination.

Measles is simply .. different. So it can be met in a different way.

Going straight for herd immunity to tackle Covid-19 has two massive drawbacks .. one, it'll create appalling loss of life and suffering, and if that weren't bad enough, it'd kill off our ability to deal with other illnesses (e.g cancer) for as long as healthcare is overwhelmed with Covid-19 disease treatment. The second is its sheer uncontrollability. A virus running rampant will cross what borders it can, because it's oblivious to them, and will do its worst wherever it is present.

For this reason, if America did insist upon abandoning all restraints and just opened everything up, then I'd want it to seal its borders tight shut. Because what you choose for yourself, may be a fate you inflict on everyone else. Your choice becomes everyone else's lack of choice.

This new drug that's been announced seems to be great news. But I hope everyone will be cautious, no matter how good things seem. Imagine: a drug that works well, does great things ... then, Covid mutates and overcomes the drug's effectiveness. Mix that in with a population where, because of lack of restraint, far more people have it than would've had it otherwise .. the chance of mutation, if it's there, is magnified, made far more likely.