May 16, 20205 yr 12 minutes ago, Gannan said: Yet you guys have no problem defending this... Nope. That was gross. 4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: I know you're in love with her but you are right that she is super smart and talented. She is also fully capable of swallowing for Trump it would seem. "Hey 32 year old with major political aspirations, wanna come be the White House Press Secretary? As Press Secretary like every other predecessor before you, you’re expected to play spin doctor for the President. Think you can do that and do it extremely well?” ”Umm F yeah. Be there in 5 minutes.”
May 16, 20205 yr 42 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Also, herd immunity is entirely doable though of course the timing is not well understood as each virus is unique in terms of its potential to spread. None the less, all the experts I've read say it is possible though they don't share a consensus as to what rate it needed and how long it takes to get there. For the US, you’d need about 250 million people to contract the virus within a year to achieve herd immunity. For arguments sake, let’s say you’d only need 175 million people. In order for "only” 175 million people to contract the virus within a year, you’d need to have 480,000 people contract the virus per DAY. How is that doable? Not to mention the you’re likely looking at over 1 million deaths in a year if that were to happen. And I agree there are a lot of factors at play. Hence why I focus on South Korea and Japan. 2 countries with significantly higher population densities than the US. 2 countries that have the international travel from the original epicenter risk. Etc... Obviously, they were way more proactive than us. But moving forward, there’s no reason why we can’t get to a similar position that they are in, IF our people take the appropriate measures.
May 16, 20205 yr 32 minutes ago, Gannan said: Yet you guys have no problem defending this... This is classic Zuker. Constantly bemoans PC culture then gets upset when somebody says "retarded” in here.
May 16, 20205 yr 19 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: For the US, you’d need about 250 million people to contract the virus within a year to achieve herd immunity. For arguments sake, let’s say you’d only need 175 million people. In order for "only” 175 million people to contract the virus within a year, you’d need to have 480,000 people contract the virus per DAY. How is that doable? Not to mention the you’re likely looking at over 1 million deaths in a year if that were to happen. And I agree there are a lot of factors at play. Hence why I focus on South Korea and Japan. 2 countries with significantly higher population densities than the US. 2 countries that have the international travel from the original epicenter risk. Etc... Obviously, they were way more proactive than us. But moving forward, there’s no reason why we can’t get to a similar position that they are in, IF our people take the appropriate measures. There is zero chance the same measures will work in the US. Have you been to either country? I have a whole bunch of times. They have orderly singular homogeneous populations who can police themselves and they are both hyper clean to begin with in terms of personal hygiene. They also have no problem basically making their old people stay fully isolated. Totally unlike the US.
May 16, 20205 yr 6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: There is zero chance the same measures will work in the US. Have you been to either country? I have a whole bunch of times. They have orderly singular populations who can police themselves and they are both hyper clean to begin with in terms of personal hygiene. They also have no problem basically making their old people stay fully isolated. Totally unlike the US. Well that’s my point. It’s up to the people to take it on themselves to make smart decisions. We are the vehicle for the virus. We are the ones spreading it around. If we don’t take the proper precautions, then it will continue to spread.
May 16, 20205 yr 22 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: For the US, you’d need about 250 million people to contract the virus within a year to achieve herd immunity. For arguments sake, let’s say you’d only need 175 million people. In order for "only” 175 million people to contract the virus within a year, you’d need to have 480,000 people contract the virus per DAY. How is that doable? Not to mention the you’re likely looking at over 1 million deaths in a year if that were to happen. And I agree there are a lot of factors at play. Hence why I focus on South Korea and Japan. 2 countries with significantly higher population densities than the US. 2 countries that have the international travel from the original epicenter risk. Etc... Obviously, they were way more proactive than us. But moving forward, there’s no reason why we can’t get to a similar position that they are in, IF our people take the appropriate measures. Regarding herd immunity I suggest you poke around and look at the recent studies. The conclusions vary greatly and the numbers are nearly impossible to predict accurately. I'd be careful using the numbers in your 1st paragraph as if they were known fact, they are not.
May 16, 20205 yr 1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said: Well that’s my point. It’s up to the people to take it on themselves to make smart decisions. We are the vehicle for the virus. We are the ones spreading it around. If we don’t take the proper precautions, then it will continue to spread. I think in the end we are really saying pretty much the same thing though you don't seem to like it when someone includes mentioning "herd immunity" as Vikas did or I have done. All both of us are saying is that we can open up to the point of controlling the curve and move in the direction of a potential herd immunity whether we get there or not. The opening is a matter of degree of course. There is one parameter we can use as a valve to open or close and that is the capacity for hospitals to manage patients and not be overrun. I'm not sure what other metric we can use in practice. It isn't "save all lives" or we'd be in full lock down forever until a vaccine appears. That is also only helping in the short term and ignores the long term ill effects on the health of the populace. Do you have another metric in mind?
May 16, 20205 yr 20 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Regarding herd immunity I suggest you poke around and look at the recent studies. The conclusions vary greatly and the numbers are nearly impossible to predict accurately. I'd be careful using the numbers in your 1st paragraph as if they were known fact, they are not. FYI here is one from JHU https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-our-experts/early-herd-immunity-against-covid-19-a-dangerous-misconception "To reach herd immunity for COVID-19, likely 70% or more of the population would need to be immune. Without a vaccine, over 200 million Americans would have to get infected before we reach this threshold. ”
May 16, 20205 yr 20 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: I think in the end we are really saying pretty much the same thing though you don't seem to like it when someone includes mentioning "herd immunity" as Vikas did or I have done. All both of us are saying is that we can open up to the point of controlling the curve and move in the direction of a potential herd immunity whether we get there or not. The opening is a matter of degree of course. There is one parameter we can use as a valve to open or close and that is the capacity for hospitals to manage patients and not be overrun. I'm not sure what other metric we can use in practice. It isn't "save all lives" or we'd be in full lock down forever until a vaccine appears. That is also only helping in the short term and ignores the long term ill effects on the health of the populace. Do you have another metric in mind? Because reaching herd immunity isn’t a solution. As of right now, we don’t even know how long antibodies will provide protection. It is very possible that they only provide protection for 40 weeks. Which means you’d need to reach herd immunity within a year for it to have ANY benefit. If the amount of people required to reach herd immunity contract this disease, then we have failed miserably.
May 16, 20205 yr 9 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Because reaching herd immunity isn’t a solution. As of right now, we don’t even know how long antibodies will provide protection. It is very possible that they only provide protection for 40 weeks. Which means you’d need to reach herd immunity within a year for it to have ANY benefit. If the amount of people required to reach herd immunity contract this disease, then we have failed miserably. So what metric do you wish to use to relegate how open or closed society should be at any given point until such time as a vaccine is created (if ever)?
May 16, 20205 yr 27 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Because reaching herd immunity isn’t a solution. As of right now, we don’t even know how long antibodies will provide protection. It is very possible that they only provide protection for 40 weeks. Which means you’d need to reach herd immunity within a year for it to have ANY benefit. If the amount of people required to reach herd immunity contract this disease, then we have failed miserably. I’ve noticed none of the medical experts talk about herd immunity as an option.
May 16, 20205 yr 4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: I’ve noticed none of the medical experts talk about herd immunity as an option. Really? That’s not true. They talk about it all the time. They don’t suggest just running normal life and marching toward herd immunity as the suggested strategy no but that’s another thing all together.
May 16, 20205 yr 1 minute ago, DrPhilly said: Really? That’s not true. They talk about it all the time. They don’t suggest just running normal life and marching toward herd immunity as the suggested strategy no but that’s another thing all together. Yeah, really. I don’t think it’s considered plausible.
May 16, 20205 yr 28 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: So what metric do you wish to use to relegate how open or closed society should be at any given point until such time as a vaccine is created (if ever)? As I’ve already said, there’s no reason to not have everything open back up right now. Just have people wear masks when maintaining physical distance isn’t feasible.
May 16, 20205 yr 51 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: FYI here is one from JHU https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-our-experts/early-herd-immunity-against-covid-19-a-dangerous-misconception "To reach herd immunity for COVID-19, likely 70% or more of the population would need to be immune. Without a vaccine, over 200 million Americans would have to get infected before we reach this threshold. ” https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v2.article-metrics https://judithcurry.com/2020/05/10/why-herd-immunity-to-covid-19-is-reached-much-earlier-than-thought/ Here is one and a summary of it that says 17% may be all that is needed. I'm not saying I agree with this one but just that there is no actual consensus on what numbers are correct. I've seen 40%, 50%, 60%, 70% in various studies.
May 16, 20205 yr 5 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: Yeah, really. I don’t think it’s considered plausible. Well not by politicians anyway that's for sure. There are plenty of experts that believe the best solution is to "control the curve" (remember that phrase?) and burn thru to a vaccine. When asked if that was a strategy toward "herd immunity" they are careful to say "not necessarily". 5 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: As I’ve already said, there’s no reason to not have everything open back up right now. Just have people wear masks when maintaining physical distance isn’t feasible. That's not what I asked you. How will you know when it is time to slow it or shut back down again?
May 16, 20205 yr 8 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: Yeah, really. I don’t think it’s considered plausible. What 24 month strategy do you find to be "plausible"?
May 16, 20205 yr 2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: What 24 month strategy do you find to be "plausible"? No idea. I keep reading articles about covid-19 damaging the lungs permanently. If that’s the case "herd immunity” does not sound like a great idea.
May 16, 20205 yr 1 minute ago, Dave Moss said: No idea. I keep reading articles about covid-19 damaging the lungs permanently. If that’s the case "herd immunity” does not sound like a great idea. There is no great solution. Maybe this guy has a point to bring to the table.
May 16, 20205 yr 22 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v2.article-metrics https://judithcurry.com/2020/05/10/why-herd-immunity-to-covid-19-is-reached-much-earlier-than-thought/ Here is one and a summary of it that says 17% may be all that is needed. I'm not saying I agree with this one but just that there is no actual consensus on what numbers are correct. I've seen 40%, 50%, 60%, 70% in various studies. Haven’t read the entire study from the medRx site you posted, but from What I did read, it looks like what they are proposing is a hypothesis of potential unproven factors that COULD reduce the herd immunity % required. Even in their study they acknowledge that the thread hold to reach herd immunity for a virus with Ro between 2 and 3 is 60-70%. Estimates of the Ro of the virus range from 2.5 all the way up to near 6. And if the Ro is in the 5-6 range, you’d be looking at well higher than 70% needed. Id be very cautious about reading an unproven hypothesis looking at best case scenarios and running with them. There were scientists at Oxford that hypothesized that England was weeks away from reaching herd immunity back in March. They were obviously way off the mark.
May 16, 20205 yr 9 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: There is no great solution. Maybe this guy has a point to bring to the table. We should listen to health experts first and foremost. We won’t, but we should. Be flexible. As we learn more, plans will change. Lastly, and most importantly, don’t listen to people who are most worried about how this will impact them.
May 16, 20205 yr 18 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Haven’t read the entire study from the medRx site you posted, but from What I did read, it looks like what they are proposing is a hypothesis of potential unproven factors that COULD reduce the herd immunity % required. Even in their study they acknowledge that the thread hold to reach herd immunity for a virus with Ro between 2 and 3 is 60-70%. Estimates of the Ro of the virus range from 2.5 all the way up to near 6. And if the Ro is in the 5-6 range, you’d be looking at well higher than 70% needed. Id be very cautious about reading an unproven hypothesis looking at best case scenarios and running with them. There were scientists at Oxford that hypothesized that England was weeks away from reaching herd immunity back in March. They were obviously way off the mark. Thanks you just helped prove my point. There is no consensus as to what it would take.
May 16, 20205 yr 15 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: We should listen to health experts first and foremost. We won’t, but we should. Be flexible. As we learn more, plans will change. Lastly, and most importantly, don’t listen to people who are most worried about how this will impact them. Agreed 100% BUT the info from the health experts is only part of the mix. A big part but only part AND their views are evolving as we learn more
May 16, 20205 yr 45 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: That's not what I asked you. How will you know when it is time to slow it or shut back down again? If people don’t take the proper precautions to stop spreading the virus, the government won’t have to make a decision on shutting things down, the economy will shut down on its own as supply chains will be disrupted and dread risk will cause people to stay home. The initial lockdown was needed because we weren’t prepared. So we needed to give hospitals time to build up PPE supplies and to decrease surge volume so that the healthcare system wasn’t overrun. Now that we’ve had 2 months to build up those supplies (and we will continue to build up those supplies moving forward) and hospitals have worked on ways to temporarily increase critical care beds when needed, we should be much more prepared if a second wave happens.
May 16, 20205 yr 20 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Thanks you just helped prove my point. There is no consensus as to what it would take. Except that their is already a consensus (even acknowledged in your own cited article) that for a virus with a Ro between 2&3 that you need 60-70% of the population to contract the virus to reach herd immunity . Any talk of % below 50 is pipe dream hypothesis built on hope. And you don’t propose a solution built on hope. Thinking that herd immunity could be reached with a % contraction as low as 20% is no different than thinking that an unproven drug is the cure for the virus. It would be great if it were true, but it’s completely unproven and there is little more than hope as evidence that it could be true. And until it is proven that it could be true, the goal should not be hinging on that.
Create an account or sign in to comment