There is no evidence of herd immunity soon

[moon]

....and a new dawn for America.

[Concart]

No one is questioning math.

Assumptions are another thing. You can make a mathematical equation for just about anything you can imagine, but if the assumptions underlying the variables are junk—then the mathematical conclusions are junk. [see: man made global warming or the Ferguson COVID model]

See the way that works?

The *spurious* assumption at work in this instance is that there is only one kind of immunity. IOW one can only be immune to COVID only if one has been infected and recovered. Problem is, there is a large swath of the population that either doesn’t get COVID or if they do get it it’s a mild case.

There are whole populations that are resistant and they are still trying to learn why. Here is Gupta, I assume she’s ‘an approved’ epidemiologist:

“One thing seems clear: there are many reasons why one population is more protected than another. 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,”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...ation-immunity
_________________

The mistake you and our insufferable friend Connie is making is assuming your assumptions are valid. It’s a common logical error but it’s easily fixed by first *recognizing* there’s an assumption at work, and then questioning it and examining it to see if it’s valid.

Fortunately, that assumption is being examined in this instance.

False. Completely wrong. Whatever additional immunities exist are baked into the R0. Ooops. Do you ever tire of getting batted around like a pinata?

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

No one is questioning math.

Assumptions are another thing. You can make a mathematical equation for just about anything you can imagine, but if the assumptions underlying the variables are junk—then the mathematical conclusions are junk. [see: man made global warming or the Ferguson COVID model]

See the way that works?

The *spurious* assumption at work in this instance is that there is only one kind of immunity. IOW one can only be immune to COVID only if one has been infected and recovered. Problem is, there is a large swath of the population that either doesn’t get COVID or if they do get it it’s a mild case.

There are whole populations that are resistant and they are still trying to learn why. Here is Gupta, I assume she’s ‘an approved’ epidemiologist:

“One thing seems clear: there are many reasons why one population is more protected than another. 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,”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...ation-immunity
_________________

The mistake you and our insufferable friend Connie is making is assuming your assumptions are valid. It’s a common logical error but it’s easily fixed by first *recognizing* there’s an assumption at work, and then questioning it and examining it to see if it’s valid.

Fortunately, that assumption is being examined in this instance.

Nice try, Darth.

Gotta hand it to you. You really did some digging to come up with this old UK article from June.

I presume you settled on this because you were unable to find anything from the USA which suited your argument, or anything more up to date.

No matter. Let's have a look-see at some quotes from your linked wishful teasing tabloid article:

"“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. "

Someone in the UK had a HUNCH back in June. Great. This is your argument for thinking in October that the math which has encompassed results beyond her June HUNCH is flawed because it assumes observed trends will continue? OK, then. Not much to hang a hat on, to say the least.

What did her HUNCH lead her to wonder (without supporting data to prove it...) ?

"Holding to her hunch, she believes that lockdown was an overreaction and that frontline care and protection of the vulnerable – which should have been a priority from the beginning – should be prioritised now. She also thinks that the worst is behind us, and that while subsequent waves can’t be ruled out, they will probably be less bad than what we have experienced so far. "

Back in June, she guessed that the worst was already behind us, and that any subsequent wave would not be as bad. OK, got it.

How did her hunch work out?

Well, we don't have to wonder about that any more. It's no longer June. It's October. A subsequent wave has hit the UK. It's far worse. We can see how bad it is in this graph of Daily New Cases in the United Kingdom, showing the period of time prior to, and since her unsupported HUNCH:

Screenshot_2020-10-28 United Kingdom Coronavirus 917,575 Cases and 45,365 Deaths - Worldometer.jpg

(Click to enlarge, or click the link for full size)

UK Daily New Cases Showing a subsequent wave after her hunch that it would not be as bad, actually being FOUR TIMES AS BAD. The peak they saw prior to June got up to around 5000 new cases per day, and now it has recently shot up to 20,000 new cases per day. AND STILL RISING...

Her HUNCH was made after the first wave in the UK, when cases were very low, as shown on the graph. We no longer have to wonder how that HUNCH worked out. Now we can clearly see that there is currently a second wave gripping the nation and it is already 4 times worse than the first one.

She was wrong.

I stand by my math. The same math you already agreed is correct.

To the best of our knowledge, we will need to see at least 4 million dead Americans before herd immunity is reached. Wishful thinking that might not be the case is an unsupported and already disproved old hunch.

[Darth Omar]

False. Completely wrong. Whatever additional immunities exist are baked into the R0. Ooops. Do you ever tire of getting batted around like a pinata?

I’ve been beat up before but so far not by you lol?

Keep at it though, you get an A for effort.

[Damocles]

both contribute.
herd immunity is defined when enough percentage of the population is immune to a disease
(through vaccination and/or prior illness) and those left are too small a % to sustain outbreaks

There is not one disease that we have herd immunity to that has not been provided by vaccinations. From polio to smallpox it was the vaccination that provided herd immunity. Childhood disease continued to be a constant, we all got the disease, that isn't herd immunity as it was likely that each and every one of us would catch the disease. And some disease, like this one, immunity only lasts for a short while... constant vaccinations are likely our future with this one if we want herd immunity.

We built a hard immunity with measles through vaccinations, yet we had an outbreak because folks were coming from places that do not vaccinate for measles and too few were getting the vaccination for their kids because of idiots who say that it causes autism.

[Darth Omar]

Hello Darth,



Nice try, Darth.

Gotta hand it to you. You really did some digging to come up with this old UK article from June.

I presume you settled on this because you were unable to find anything from the USA which suited your argument, or anything more up to date.

No matter. Let's have a look-see at some quotes from your linked wishful teasing tabloid article:

"“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. "

Someone in the UK had a HUNCH back in June. Great. This is your argument for thinking in October that the math which has encompassed results beyond her June HUNCH is flawed because it assumes observed trends will continue? OK, then. Not much to hang a hat on, to say the least.

What did her HUNCH lead her to wonder (without supporting data to prove it...) ?

"Holding to her hunch, she believes that lockdown was an overreaction and that frontline care and protection of the vulnerable – which should have been a priority from the beginning – should be prioritised now. She also thinks that the worst is behind us, and that while subsequent waves can’t be ruled out, they will probably be less bad than what we have experienced so far. "

Back in June, she guessed that the worst was already behind us, and that any subsequent wave would not be as bad. OK, got it.

How did her hunch work out?

Well, we don't have to wonder about that any more. It's no longer June. It's October. A subsequent wave has hit the UK. It's far worse. We can see how bad it is in this graph of Daily New Cases in the United Kingdom, showing the period of time prior to, and since her unsupported HUNCH:

Screenshot_2020-10-28 United Kingdom Coronavirus 917,575 Cases and 45,365 Deaths - Worldometer.jpg

(Click to enlarge, or click the link for full size)

UK Daily New Cases Showing a subsequent wave after her hunch that it would not be as bad, actually being FOUR TIMES AS BAD. The peak they saw prior to June got up to around 5000 new cases per day, and now it has recently shot up to 20,000 new cases per day. AND STILL RISING...

Her HUNCH was made after the first wave in the UK, when cases were very low, as shown on the graph. We no longer have to wonder how that HUNCH worked out. Now we can clearly see that there is currently a second wave gripping the nation and it is already 4 times worse than the first one.

She was wrong.

I stand by my math. The same math you already agreed is correct.

To the best of our knowledge, we will need to see at least 4 million dead Americans before herd immunity is reached. Wishful thinking that might not be the case is an unsupported and already disproved old hunch.

Sunetra Gupta is a theoretical epidemiologist at Oxford.

No matter how hard I try I can’t find an ‘approved authority’ lol. The fact Gupta would put forth ‘a hunch’ is because there’s a gap in our knowledge. The gap in knowledge in June is the same gap in knowledge now. The fact is we don’t know why some populations are resistant to COVID while others are less so.

Gupta posits cross-protection from previous infections with other bugs—as an explanation. Do you, or our insufferable friend Connie, have evidence that precludes this possibility?

Or just your own speculations that conform with the ‘accepted wisdom’?

[dukkha]

There is not one disease that we have herd immunity to that has not been provided by vaccinations. From polio to smallpox it was the vaccination that provided herd immunity. Childhood disease continued to be a constant, we all got the disease, that isn't herd immunity as it was likely that each and every one of us would catch the disease. And some disease, like this one, immunity only lasts for a short while... constant vaccinations are likely our future with this one if we want herd immunity.

We built a hard immunity with measles through vaccinations, yet we had an outbreak because folks were coming from places that do not vaccinate for measles and too few were getting the vaccination for their kids because of idiots who say that it causes autism.

The immunity thing:
we also know COVID is a SARS type virus, and b memory cells can quickly produce antibodies
and secret T-Cells when a reinfection happens.
So the fact antibodies only last for a few months isn't important - again if it were only antibodies virtually everyone would get re-infected, and we know the vast majority do not.

But yes long term a vaccine is the only way to get rid of it by herd immunity.

My point was before the vaccines become widely distributed ( some say could take 9 months)
we should reach herd immunity by natural resistance by the immune system
and vaccines should keep it from popping up again after this go round

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

Sunetra Gupta is a theoretical epidemiologist at Oxford.

No matter how hard I try I can’t find ‘approved authority’ lol. The fact Gupta would put forth ‘a hunch’ is because there’s a gap in our knowledge. The gap in knowledge in June is the same gap in knowledge now. The fact is we don’t know why some populations are resistant to COVID while others are less so.

Gupta posits cross-protection from previous infections with other bugs—as an explanation. Do you, or our insufferable friend Connie, have evidence that precludes this possibility?

Or just your own speculations that conform with the ‘accepted wisdom’?

I don't have to disprove her speculations. She has not proven them.

It is unwise to assume her hunch, which has already been shown to be false when she thought the worst was over and then it wasn't, is fact and set policy according to this unproven hunch.

Here is how wisdom acts:

Assume the worst, hope for the best.

You prepare for the worst, then if that happens, you're covered.

You hope for the best, hope that your preparations turn out to be wasted efforts. Because they are not really wasted. They are smart.

It's like looking at a hurricane coming and saying the odds are it won't cause mass destruction, and then not boarding up or moving to safer ground.

Sure, you'll PROBABLY be OK, but PROBABLY is not wise when if you're wrong you are devastated and possibly dead.

Just like with a hurricane, actions taken to reduce loss are good practice. Even if the rost does not occur.

Will it cost you some money? Yes. Is it wisely spent? YES!

Even if you don't get the worst case, you have rehearsed an action, and learned some lessons which could later prove invaluable should you be subsequently faced with a similar threat.

Doing everything we can to combat COVID is wise not just because it is saving lives right now, but because we never know when the next pandemic will hit, nor how lethal that one will be.

We take this one seriously, we learn lessons, go to school, and then we have a far better idea of how to be ready for the next one.

Gupta could be onto something to a degree. She has already been proven incorrect by the magnitude of the second wave. But her theories are valid. Not to the degree that you hoped, but she is right to question why some societies are hit harder than others. That is a worthy area for study. But far more study along that line needs to be done before placing all your eggs in a basket with a false bottom. Most people have no desire to be her sidewalk omelet.

[Darth Omar]

Hello Darth,



I don't have to disprove her speculations. She has not proven them.

It is unwise to assume her hunch, which has already been shown to be false when she thought the worst was over and then it wasn't, is fact and set policy according to this unproven hunch.

Here is how wisdom acts:

Assume the worst, hope for the best.

You prepare for the worst, then if that happens, you're covered.

You hope for the best, hope that your preparations turn out to be wasted efforts. Because they are not really wasted. They are smart.

It's like looking at a hurricane coming and saying the odds are it won't cause mass destruction, and then not boarding up or moving to safer ground.

Sure, you'll PROBABLY be OK, but PROBABLY is not wise when if you're wrong you are devastated and possibly dead.

Just like with a hurricane, actions taken to reduce loss are good practice. Even if the rost does not occur.

Will it cost you some money? Yes. Is it wisely spent? YES!

Even if you don't get the worst case, you have rehearsed an action, and learned some lessons which could later prove invaluable should you be subsequently faced with a similar threat.

Doing everything we can to combat COVID is wise not just because it is saving lives right now, but because we never know when the next pandemic will hit, nor how lethal that one will be.

We take this one seriously, we learn lessons, go to school, and then we have a far better idea of how to be ready for the next one.

Gupta could be onto something to a degree. She has already been proven incorrect by the magnitude of the second wave. But her theories are valid. Not to the degree that you hoped, but she is right to question why some societies are hit harder than others. That is a worthy area for study. But far more study along that line needs to be done before placing all your eggs in a basket with a false bottom. Most people have no desire to be her sidewalk omelet.

So, my theoretical epidemiologist from Oxford doesn’t meet the standard of approved scientist lol.

Do you seriously want to get into ‘who has been wrong’? How about Neil Ferguson?

[Sailor]

Hard to say.

This is the interweb—he could be a pot scrubber lol.

He does not even have the intellect for that.

[Geeko Sportivo]

The Alt Right claims that we are on the verge of herd immunity, or even that we have herd immunity. If that were true, we would see drastically dropping numbers of cases, we are seeing the opposite. Europe is seeing a second wave, America is seeing a third surge, and every country seems easily susceptible to a new outbreak.

Being on the verge of herd immunity was a logical hypothesis, but it has been disproven. We are nowhere near herd immunity. And we do not know why. It appears you can get Covid-19 multiple times, which might be the reason. Also it appears that a mild case of Covid-19 does not setoff a strong immunity reaction, and that additional infections can be cumulative. This means that the second, or third time you get it might do more serious harm than the first time. Or maybe just far fewer people have gotten the disease than we first thought (and thus the disease is far more deadly).

trump's whole policy was maybe he would get lucky. There used to be a chance of that, but right now there is looking to be no chance of that. Now we have to regret no attempt to put a contact tracing system into effect, and no quarantining of the spread of Covid-19.

Never believe anything coming out of the mouth of a Republican! They are fucking liars and thieves!

[Granule]

The Alt Right claims that we are on the verge of herd immunity, or even that we have herd immunity. If that were true, we would see drastically dropping numbers of cases, we are seeing the opposite. Europe is seeing a second wave, America is seeing a third surge, and every country seems easily susceptible to a new outbreak.

Being on the verge of herd immunity was a logical hypothesis, but it has been disproven. We are nowhere near herd immunity. And we do not know why. It appears you can get Covid-19 multiple times, which might be the reason. Also it appears that a mild case of Covid-19 does not setoff a strong immunity reaction, and that additional infections can be cumulative. This means that the second, or third time you get it might do more serious harm than the first time. Or maybe just far fewer people have gotten the disease than we first thought (and thus the disease is far more deadly).

trump's whole policy was maybe he would get lucky. There used to be a chance of that, but right now there is looking to be no chance of that. Now we have to regret no attempt to put a contact tracing system into effect, and no quarantining of the spread of Covid-19.

Please don't destroy our Corona Virus, it's the only weapon we have for world domination.

-- The Left

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

So, my theoretical epidemiologist from Oxford doesn’t meet the standard of approved scientist lol.

Do you seriously want to get into ‘who has been wrong’? How about Neil Ferguson?

This theoretical epidemiologist from Oxford shot herself in the foot by going public with a pet theory that turned out to be wrong.

She didn't think there would be a second wave, or if there was would not be as bad as the first. Now, just a few months after she went public to a tabloid, that has been sadly shown to be wrong. The second wave has hit the UK, and it was 4 times worse than the first SO FAR.

Smart scientists wait until they have more solid evidence before going public, and they don't use a tabloid to do it.

Whatever credibility she may have had is shot now.

And that's too bad because it is a worthy area of study to learn why some nations are hit harder than others.

[PoliTalker]

The math indicates we need to see 4 million dead Americans before reaching herd immunity.

[Walt]

Just saw a new British study suggesting that immunity only lasts about 3 months, give or take.

Can anyone explain scientifically how herd immunity would work if that was the case?

You are correct.

It is a proven fact that we are not anywhere close to herd immunity, and the question is why not. One possible reason is that immunity might be only short lived.