Short tutorial on herd immunity for the unenlightened

fourteen years ago, two federal government doctors, Richard Hatchett and Carter Mecher, met with a colleague at a burger joint in suburban Washington for a final review of a proposal they knew would be treated like a piñata: telling Americans to stay home from work and school the next time the country was hit by a deadly pandemic.

When they presented their plan not long after, it was met with skepticism and a degree of ridicule by senior officials, who like others in the United States had grown accustomed to relying on the pharmaceutical industry, with its ever-growing array of new treatments, to confront evolving health challenges.

Drs. Hatchett and Mecher were proposing instead that Americans in some places might have to turn back to an approach, self-isolation, first widely employed in the Middle Ages.

How that idea — born out of a request by President George W. Bush to ensure the nation was better prepared for the next contagious disease outbreak — became the heart of the national playbook for responding to a pandemic is one of the untold stories of the coronavirus crisis.

It required the key proponents — Dr. Mecher, a Department of Veterans Affairs physician, and Dr. Hatchett, an oncologist turned White House adviser — to overcome intense initial opposition.

It brought their work together with that of a Defense Department team assigned to a similar task.

And it had some unexpected detours, including a deep dive into the history of the 1918 Spanish flu and an important discovery kicked off by a high school research project pursued by the daughter of a scientist at the Sandia National Laboratories.

The concept of social distancing is now intimately familiar to almost everyone. But as it first made its way through the federal bureaucracy in 2006 and 2007, it was viewed as impractical, unnecessary and politically infeasible.

Notice that in the course of this planning, neither legal nor economic experts were brought in to consult and advise.
Instead it fell to Mecher (formerly of Chicago and an intensive care doctor with no previous expertise in pandemics) and the oncologist Hatchett.

That paper is Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza (2006). It set out a model for forced separation and applied it with good results backwards in time to 1957.
https://www.aier.org/article/the-2006-origins-of-the-lockdown-idea/
 
The ‘herd immunity point’ would be something like ‘why are we cutting our noses off to spite our face in closing schools, when kids have a much greater chance of dying from the flu than COVID?’

Kids and young adults would provide the foundation for herd immunity: they rarely die from COVID. Yet we are doing everything we can to isolate that population.

In short, we are being very stupid—and cowardly. But it’s apparently kind of where we’re at.
....
 
H1N1 *was known to be* more lethal to kids and young people and there was no mass school closures.

Though the political environment was a little different then.
we got played. Normally we sequestor those at high risk -not the entire population.. Fauci fucked up again -
it just delays herd immunity -and destroys the economy - never mind elected surgeries and the rest of it gone
 
H1N1 *was known to be* more lethal to kids and young people and there was no mass school closures.

Though the political environment was a little different then.

Much is made of the remarkably low figures for Covid-19 in SE Asia. I think in part this is due to many people gaining immunity to SARS earlier this century. They are very similar viruses in structure and their mode of operation. This is a theory that is gaining more and more traction but the Wikipedia trained epidemiologists dismiss it out of hand!

Theoretical epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford thinks that a key one is immunity that was built up prior to this pandemic. “It’s been my hunch for a very long time that there is a lot of cross-protection from severe disease and death conferred by other circulating, related bugs,” she says. Though that cross-protection may not protect a person from infection in the first place, it could ensure they only experience relatively mild symptoms.

Gupta’s hunch has remained just that, because of the lack of data on immunity to Covid-19. Antibody testing, as we know, was slow to get going and unreliable to begin with, and the results to date suggest that the percentages of populations carrying antibodies to the Covid-19 virus are often in single or low-double digits. New, more sensitive antibody tests that have become available in recent weeks could soon provide a much more accurate picture if deployed widely enough, but there are already hints that the results to date may be underestimates.

First there was evidence based on diagnostic testing of postmortem samples from patients who died in December that the virus was circulating in western countries – notably France and the US – about a month earlier than was initially thought. New research shows that another component of the human immune response – T cells, which help orchestrate the antibody response – show memory for coronavirus infection when exposed to Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19.

In a paper published in Cell on 14 May, researchers at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology in California reported that T cells in blood drawn from people between 2015 and 2018 recognised and reacted to fragments of the Sars-CoV-2 virus. “These people could not have possibly seen Sars-CoV-2,” says one of the paper’s senior authors, Alessandro Sette. “The most reasonable hypothesis is that this reactivity is really cross-reactivity with the cousins of Sars-CoV-2 – the common cold coronaviruses which circulate very broadly and generally give rather mild disease.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...does-it-exist-coronavirus-population-immunity
 
Epidemiologists call the level where the epidemic ends the “herd immunity” threshold. Herd immunity does not mean that the virus has completely disappeared, only that it can no longer infect a critical mass of people and become an epidemic again.

Figuring out when a virus has reached herd immunity is very tricky, even trickier than estimating the death rate. It depends heavily on the virus’s reproduction number, or R — how many people one infected person infects in turn.

The higher the R, the more quickly a virus will spread, and the more people must be infected before the epidemic breaks. Coronavirus seemed at first to be highly contagious, and most scientists initially believed that 60 percent to 80 percent of people might need to be infected before herd immunity was reached.

But the R for the coronavirus seems to vary wildly at different times and places. Also, some people may have some pre-existing immunity because of their exposure to other coronaviruses.

A growing number of scientists believe the threshold for herd immunity may be much lower. Some predict it might be 40 percent. Others say it could be as low as 20 percent — meaning that the epidemic will burn out after only 1 in 5 people is infected with and recovers from the virus.

And real-world evidence — from Sweden, from Sunbelt states like Arizona, and now from the Brazilian city of Manaus — provides very encouraging evidence that the immunity threshold may be well below 50 percent. Sweden, Arizona and Manaus don’t have much in common, but in all of them the epidemic burned out relatively quickly, without hard lockdowns, and after a relatively low number of people were infected based on antibody tests.

If we can actually reach herd immunity after 40 percent or less of the population is infected, far fewer people will die than the early forecasts, even without lockdowns. And if the best-case estimates of 20 percent or less are correct, we may be closer to the end than the beginning of the coronavirus epidemic. It’s still too early to be certain — but maybe for the first time since March, we have real reason to hope.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/25/we-co...ccine-is-ready/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
_____________________

But NY Post.

This dude Berenson may get a Pulitzer one day for his ‘against the orthodoxy’ reporting on COVID. The reason it’s in the NY Post and not the NYT is because the latter is on COVID Team Orthodoxy. And in a big way.

At any rate, Berenson lays herd immunity out in easily understood lay terms. This is what real journalism looks like. Note the lack of ‘scientists say’.

If you come across an article with sentences prefaced with ‘scientists say’ then the writer either doesn’t know how to report on the subject or they have an agenda. If you want to print an article that favors your own POV, quote only those scientists that agree with said POV and preface sentences with ‘scientists say’. It works like magic on the lemmings.

The left perfected this with climate change. They used the same tactic on HCQ: believe it or not there are doctors—lots of them, who have good reason to think early HCQ intervention is effective vs COVID infections. And doctors are practicing medical science. In short, they are scientists.

So when someone says ‘scientists say’ there is no COVID herd immunity they are either misinformed or they have an agenda. They are basically saying they are only willing to listen to select scientists on the subject.

The New York Post is not a credible source of news, or medical information.
 
Last edited:
Join a pox party? Please learn the history before you make yourself look dumber than before.

I know how it works, you apparently don't

It is OK. I have come to grips with your ignorance and stupidity. I mean who the fuck would call themselves a "proud" lefty. Have you bowed to BLM today?
 
Epidemiologists call the level where the epidemic ends the “herd immunity” threshold. Herd immunity does not mean that the virus has completely disappeared, only that it can no longer infect a critical mass of people and become an epidemic again.

Figuring out when a virus has reached herd immunity is very tricky, even trickier than estimating the death rate. It depends heavily on the virus’s reproduction number, or R — how many people one infected person infects in turn.

The higher the R, the more quickly a virus will spread, and the more people must be infected before the epidemic breaks. Coronavirus seemed at first to be highly contagious, and most scientists initially believed that 60 percent to 80 percent of people might need to be infected before herd immunity was reached.

But the R for the coronavirus seems to vary wildly at different times and places. Also, some people may have some pre-existing immunity because of their exposure to other coronaviruses.

A growing number of scientists believe the threshold for herd immunity may be much lower. Some predict it might be 40 percent. Others say it could be as low as 20 percent — meaning that the epidemic will burn out after only 1 in 5 people is infected with and recovers from the virus.

And real-world evidence — from Sweden, from Sunbelt states like Arizona, and now from the Brazilian city of Manaus — provides very encouraging evidence that the immunity threshold may be well below 50 percent. Sweden, Arizona and Manaus don’t have much in common, but in all of them the epidemic burned out relatively quickly, without hard lockdowns, and after a relatively low number of people were infected based on antibody tests.

If we can actually reach herd immunity after 40 percent or less of the population is infected, far fewer people will die than the early forecasts, even without lockdowns. And if the best-case estimates of 20 percent or less are correct, we may be closer to the end than the beginning of the coronavirus epidemic. It’s still too early to be certain — but maybe for the first time since March, we have real reason to hope.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/25/we-co...ccine-is-ready/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
_____________________

But NY Post.

This dude Berenson may get a Pulitzer one day for his ‘against the orthodoxy’ reporting on COVID. The reason it’s in the NY Post and not the NYT is because the latter is on COVID Team Orthodoxy. And in a big way.

At any rate, Berenson lays herd immunity out in easily understood lay terms. This is what real journalism looks like. Note the lack of ‘scientists say’.

If you come across an article with sentences prefaced with ‘scientists say’ then the writer either doesn’t know how to report on the subject or they have an agenda. If you want to print an article that favors your own POV, quote only those scientists that agree with said POV and preface sentences with ‘scientists say’. It works like magic on the lemmings.

The left perfected this with climate change. They used the same tactic on HCQ: believe it or not there are doctors—lots of them, who have good reason to think early HCQ intervention is effective vs COVID infections. And doctors are practicing medical science. In short, they are scientists.

So when someone says ‘scientists say’ there is no COVID herd immunity they are either misinformed or they have an agenda. They are basically saying they are only willing to listen to select scientists on the subject.

Which is why lockdowns are actually dumb, because it will cause more time for herd immunity to take effect.

See Swedish model. They are in far better shape than us and western EU.
 
Epidemiologists call the level where the epidemic ends the “herd immunity” threshold. Herd immunity does not mean that the virus has completely disappeared, only that it can no longer infect a critical mass of people and become an epidemic again.

Figuring out when a virus has reached herd immunity is very tricky, even trickier than estimating the death rate. It depends heavily on the virus’s reproduction number, or R — how many people one infected person infects in turn.

The higher the R, the more quickly a virus will spread, and the more people must be infected before the epidemic breaks. Coronavirus seemed at first to be highly contagious, and most scientists initially believed that 60 percent to 80 percent of people might need to be infected before herd immunity was reached.

But the R for the coronavirus seems to vary wildly at different times and places. Also, some people may have some pre-existing immunity because of their exposure to other coronaviruses.

A growing number of scientists believe the threshold for herd immunity may be much lower. Some predict it might be 40 percent. Others say it could be as low as 20 percent — meaning that the epidemic will burn out after only 1 in 5 people is infected with and recovers from the virus.

And real-world evidence — from Sweden, from Sunbelt states like Arizona, and now from the Brazilian city of Manaus — provides very encouraging evidence that the immunity threshold may be well below 50 percent. Sweden, Arizona and Manaus don’t have much in common, but in all of them the epidemic burned out relatively quickly, without hard lockdowns, and after a relatively low number of people were infected based on antibody tests.

If we can actually reach herd immunity after 40 percent or less of the population is infected, far fewer people will die than the early forecasts, even without lockdowns. And if the best-case estimates of 20 percent or less are correct, we may be closer to the end than the beginning of the coronavirus epidemic. It’s still too early to be certain — but maybe for the first time since March, we have real reason to hope.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/25/we-co...ccine-is-ready/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
_____________________

But NY Post.

This dude Berenson may get a Pulitzer one day for his ‘against the orthodoxy’ reporting on COVID. The reason it’s in the NY Post and not the NYT is because the latter is on COVID Team Orthodoxy. And in a big way.

At any rate, Berenson lays herd immunity out in easily understood lay terms. This is what real journalism looks like. Note the lack of ‘scientists say’.

If you come across an article with sentences prefaced with ‘scientists say’ then the writer either doesn’t know how to report on the subject or they have an agenda. If you want to print an article that favors your own POV, quote only those scientists that agree with said POV and preface sentences with ‘scientists say’. It works like magic on the lemmings.

The left perfected this with climate change. They used the same tactic on HCQ: believe it or not there are doctors—lots of them, who have good reason to think early HCQ intervention is effective vs COVID infections. And doctors are practicing medical science. In short, they are scientists.

So when someone says ‘scientists say’ there is no COVID herd immunity they are either misinformed or they have an agenda. They are basically saying they are only willing to listen to select scientists on the subject.

Thanks for sharing an opinion piece from a right wing hack with no medical knowledge. That was so useful. It's like you writing the piece. LOL.

Note the lack of 'science'. Period. Perfect for you.
 
"Herd Immunity" is Conservative code for "I'm too fucking lazy to do anything meaningful so I'm going to abdicate any personal responsibility for the role I played in spreading this disease through my lies and misinformation".

We are not going to get "herd immunity" for this.

Just like hydroxy, sunlight, bleach, plasma, and warm weather, this is another Conservative attempt to dismiss any mitigating actions that need to be taken to contain the spread of the virus.

The only reason we are at this point is because of the lies and misinformation Conservatives have been spreading since the beginning.
 
Back
Top