Coronavirus 2019-nCoV

[C0|dB|00ded]

Why 70%? 70% is the very upper end if you’re looking at natural vaccine-less herd immunity. That number decreases exponentially as the more susceptible are infected first.

Actually it's the very lower end. For highly infectious diseases herd immunity is achieved at rates closer to 90%. I was being conservative...

[C0|dB|00ded]

john Hopkins claims it is 70-90%

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/artic...h-covid19.html

Those numbers are correct Windi, so does Mayo Clinic.

But what do they know...

Add in the fact that immune responses to Coronaviruses are proven not to be durable compared to other viral infections and... well...

It really is an insidious, alien, bio-weapon-like, NASTY, nasty, bug.

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/d...-need-to-know/

Why is herd immunity important?


Herd immunity occurs when a large portion of a community (the herd) becomes immune to a disease, making the spread of disease from person to person unlikely. As a result, the whole community becomes protected — not just those who are immune.

Often, a percentage of the population must be capable of getting a disease in order for it to spread. This is called a threshold proportion. If the proportion of the population that is immune to the disease is greater than this threshold, the spread of the disease will decline. This is known as the herd immunity threshold.

What percentage of a community needs to be immune in order to achieve herd immunity? It varies from disease to disease. The more contagious a disease is, the greater the proportion of the population that needs to be immune to the disease to stop its spread. For example, the measles is a highly contagious illness. It's estimated that 94% of the population must be immune to interrupt the chain of transmission.

Some amount of herd immunity benefits will occur when over 50% have been infected. Spread will slow. But to achieve "herd immunity" it's going to take at least 70% but probably not 90%. But if immunity lasts only 3-9 months, then it's all up in the air and I'm moving to Iceland (if they'll have me).

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/herd-immunity-coronavirus/614035/

I read this. Cute story. Dynamic systems. 20% possible herd immunity threshold.

Just one question... who's civilization are you willing to test this theory on?

That's what I thought.

[JVShocker]

I read this. Cute story. Dynamic systems. 20% possible herd immunity threshold.

Just one question... who's civilization are you willing to test this theory on?

That's what I thought.

and while I thought what I posted was funny, my wife caught a glimpse of it and noticed that in terms of grammar, it wouldn't be "who's civilization", but "WHOSE CIVILIZATION."

Of course when she said that I just about

[shoxtop]

I read this. Cute story. Dynamic systems. 20% possible herd immunity threshold.

Just one question... who's civilization are you willing to test this theory on?

That's what I thought.

You know good and well I never suggested it was something to test. The point is we don’t know what the threshold is and will have no idea until all is said and done and if we do get a vaccine we will never know. The numbers you are basing your argument on are based around traditional vaccine herd immunity. As someone who is in to number I am surprised you are neglecting the variable change of natural selection in this case.

[C0|dB|00ded]

You know good and well I never suggested it was something to test. The point is we don’t know what the threshold is and will have no idea until all is said and done and if we do get a vaccine we will never know. The numbers you are basing your argument on are based around traditional vaccine herd immunity. As someone who is in to number I am surprised you are neglecting the variable change of natural selection in this case.

Okay, so we both agree that we don't know what the threshold is. Do you know what I call discussions about low probability sunshine 20% herd immunity outcomes? A waste of time. I took the red pill brother.

[C0|dB|00ded]

and while I thought what I posted was funny, my wife caught a glimpse of it and noticed that in terms of grammar, it wouldn't be "who's civilization", but "WHOSE CIVILIZATION."

Of course when she said that I just about

She's absolutely right. Tell her nobody likes a [grammer] nazi.

[shoxtop]

Okay, so we both agree that we don't know what the threshold is. Do you know what I call discussions about low probability sunshine 20% herd immunity outcomes? A waste of time. I took the red pill brother.

Please let me know where I ever claimed 20%. The article makes reference to 20% as one possibility but I made no claim to that. My claim, as backed up in the articles, was that the most recent models were significantly lower than previous models.

At the end of the day, herd immunity is an extremely interesting argument filled with an abundance of nuance. For instance, if you wish to define herd immunity as the slowing of the spread of the virus, I can argue that most major cities that had major outbreaks early in the lifespan of the virus now have “herd immunity” for their current variables. As far as I know, no major cities have had a second major outbreak. That argument is of course disingenuous since we all know that particular definition of “herd immunity” does not apply once the variables change. My argument against the 70-90% numbers that you are throwing out is that it is based on models that do not account for the variable change of natural selection. They are based on “herd immunity” caused by a vaccine. Certainly when you consider a vaccine, you have to remove the variability in regards to those that are more susceptible to spreading the virus because you don’t know which part of the population will be receiving the vaccine. However, when the virus is left to prey on those that are the most susceptible to continue the spread, you end up with an exponential domino effect that severely decreases the required threshold as it spreads. So, as stated by the experts in the article, the traditional means of calculating “herd immunity” does not apply well in this instance.

Does this mean I think we should stop wearing masks and social distancing? Absolutely not - Let’s all pray for a vaccine yesterday. I just don’t appreciate invalid numbers thrown about in an attempt to spread fear. The fear is already there. You don’t need to add to it.

Then again, I suppose I’m being a bit hard on you considering you hadn’t thought about that piece of it and were just going by the previously accepted numbers. I guess I’ll let this one slide, but maybe try a bit harder to be up to date with your numbers in the future. To quote one of my favorite movies: You always have to account for variable change

Have a nice day.

[Aargh]

Nobody wants to hear this, but driving is not a right, it's a privilege. And Aargh, I want you and your better half to live to 150 if that's what you want. You're "good people" obviously.

But driving isn't a right. And I get that in today's world, and especially in a more rural place (like much of Kansas and even a city like Wichita) you need to be able to drive to live a productive life. But you admit you suffer from macular degeneration. That's not a combination with driving that I want to have to deal with to be honest. I realize you want to drive, but you may no longer be capable of doing that safely, and the rest of us deserve our safety too and since we're not impeding on any of your rights, you have to prove you can drive safely. And I speculate that even if you can do that today, you won't be able to for very much longer. I had a family member I had to drive around for 3 years partially because of the same condition. Did I enjoy it? No. Did she? Absolutely not, probably less than I did driving her, and believe me, that's saying something. But it's better than letting her drive, or suffer alone.

I'm not trying to be mean. My father is in the same boat and absolutely shouldn't be driving but he's stubborn and wants his freedom and independence. So far it's just been bumpers and scratches but he's rolling the dice on hurting or killing someone else. The aging of our society is creating some difficult scenarios, few of which have simple answers. I won't have to deal with these problems as I will likely be pushing up daisies long before those problems get to me.

But this type of thinking, the everyone needs to do everything (or not do anything) to protect, save, not offend, prevent hurt or death, or delay the same....is, in my opinion, causing bigger problems than people think they are solving.

I consider myself a pretty staunch conservative. I'm am very unhappy with career politicians, from both sides of the aisle. I don't think politicians need to be telling people what to do. Suggest? Of course. Lead? You bet. About the only thing Cold is right about was his comment regarding how masks work, even if it's because people don't like to wear them and therefore stay home....that may be spot on. Social distancing WORKS. Masks, as have been stated many times by people that know what they're talking about, don't. Maybe the unintended side show helps, I'll grant you that. But this virus, THE SCIENCE SAYS, is going to spread throughout society, one way or the other. This has always been about not overwhelming the health care system. Politicians keep moving the goalposts, so many of the citizens do too.

Our governor panicked shutting down the economy. It was overkill, and even if it wasn't, it was too soon. A terrible decision. Was it political? I hope not. But it was terrible decision.

I DO think you should social distance so that mask wearing is moot. In 4 months I can count on 2 hands the number of people I've been within 6 feet, and that includes family. I wear a mask in public. It's exceedingly hard for me to breathe wearing one, and I promise you it's more harmful to me than the threat of the virus, and I'm in a very high risk category. But I respect others, and I don't want to trigger any snowflakes out there that might not survive seeing me without a mask (and even in Wichita, those lunatics are everywhere) so I wear a mask. It doesn't help anything. The few times I go to the store I wait for others to pass so I'm rarely anywhere near 6 feet to another person. Social distancing IS important in slowing the spread. It's not going to prevent it. Nothing will. Nobody has "stopped" it and nobody will, unless the Chinese created it and had the cure already and just aren't telling us.

We shouldn't make people wear masks. And we CERTAINLY shouldn't be threatening people with tickets, fines or jail time if they fail to comply. We've already been forced by the government to take enormous financial loss for which we had no choice. Many of us have been forced to give up a substantial piece of whatever is left of our lives for the "greater good". You want to add to the pain by making some pay another financial penalty, or worse, put people in THE WORST PLACE YOU CAN BE to spread the virus....incarceration? That kind of thinking defies even stupidity, and even for our politicians who are often clueless.

You want to tell people to wear masks? Fine. Be truthful about the entire process and more people will get on board (even if you're dead wrong about their effectiveness). But threaten and warn and belittle and everything else that our "leaders" have tried, and in THIS country, you're going to get push back.

And anyone that thinks that NY is the model should have the stones to add that the model included biting the bullet and letting the virus kill as many vulnerable people as fast as possible so as to allow the virus to run it's course in a shorter period of time. Because that's the only logical explanation.

My corrected vision is 20/40 in one eye and 20/50 in the other. That means I have to take a driving test since I'm past the age range where that gets a license without taking a test.

You've done the typical thing I see from those opposing reasonable measures to prevent the spread of the virus. You change the subject to something else without dealing with the issue brought up for discussion. I've not had an at-fault accident or a ticket in over 50 years, but you would rather see me denied a driver's license if I complain about being possibly exposed to a deadly infection when I renew my license?

Your inability to consider, let alone understand, how this affects people other than yourself gives some information about you that I didn't have before.

[Stickboy46]

So this new amended order that was signed yesterday looks like it will do more harm than good.

The original order had all bar/clubs closed and all restaurants that served alcohol closed down down at 10.

They amended it to just close bars/clubs but removed that second part. Several of the "bars" in downtown serve enough food during the day that they aren't considered bars/clubs. (I'm thinking like Heroes/Pump House/Emersons). Since they will be allow to stay open at night as normal, but the rest of the "only bars/clubs" will not, you are going to be driving more people into less places and therefore packing them tighter. So unless they actually enforce masks/social distancing (which isn't going to happen in a crowded bar at night), this doesn't seem smart.

They needed to do one or the other, either stay with the original proposal which made sense, or don't do it at all. This half measure trying to please everyone will likely just make things worse.

[pinstripers]

Will there be masks in hell?

[C0|dB|00ded]

I just don’t appreciate invalid numbers thrown about in an attempt to spread fear. The fear is already there. You don’t need to add to it.

I don't attempt to spread fear, I spread facts (the latest ones). The fear is in your head and I cannot do anything about that. I've already addressed this in a post a few days ago. Attempting to placate the masses with more pleasing hypothetical outcomes is unhelpful to solving the problem.

Then again, I suppose I’m being a bit hard on you considering you hadn’t thought about that piece of it and were just going by the previously accepted numbers. I guess I’ll let this one slide, but maybe try a bit harder to be up to date with your numbers in the future.

In regards to infectiousness or lack thereof with a novel virus, I'll continue to use the general consensus of the scientific community. That's the only logical way to address/model the problem we face. Novel assumptions like the one you are presenting not only make an ass out of you and me, they can kill people.

Thanks for letting things slide!

Let's get back to discussing the facts and ways to prevent the spread!

P.S. This is the quote from one of your articles I found most compelling:

Many experts, however, consider these new studies—not all of which have been peer-reviewed yet—to be unreliable.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Will there be masks in hell?

Perhaps, if you are the vector for infecting a nursing home chock full of little old church ladies because you didn't wear one.

This... for example:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...virus-n1234591

13 sisters at Michigan convent die from the coronavirus

[C0|dB|00ded]

So this new amended order that was signed yesterday looks like it will do more harm than good.

The original order had all bar/clubs closed and all restaurants that served alcohol closed down down at 10.

They amended it to just close bars/clubs but removed that second part. Several of the "bars" in downtown serve enough food during the day that they aren't considered bars/clubs. (I'm thinking like Heroes/Pump House/Emersons). Since they will be allow to stay open at night as normal, but the rest of the "only bars/clubs" will not, you are going to be driving more people into less places and therefore packing them tighter. So unless they actually enforce masks/social distancing (which isn't going to happen in a crowded bar at night), this doesn't seem smart.

They needed to do one or the other, either stay with the original proposal which made sense, or don't do it at all. This half measure trying to please everyone will likely just make things worse.

It may be the most irresponsible display of governance you will see if you lived to be 150 years old. And the license to act in such a way comes from on high (The District of Columbia). Wichita, Ks. is firmly in the cross-hairs of the ghost of Charles Darwin. I guess we'll just see how things "shake out".

I feel kind of stuffy today with a slight chill. Perhaps it's my turn at the Coronavirus Roulette Wheel of Variable Outcomes. I was hoping I didn't have to play so soon. :(