Herd immunity looks like approx. 60% of the population carrying antibodies to the virus. The same idea behind vaccines except it occurs naturally.
No it’s a suggestion to protect the vulnerable. And allow others to go out and be exposed.
Oh, is that what it was, because he didn't say that.
I meant in terms of Covid and so far they don’t know what it will look like - if there is any, how long it lasts, etc. Until they have more of those answers, it is naive to bank on that being the solution.
We got to where we are, starting from "very low" cases. The virus spreads very effectively, each generation multiplying the number of infections. That doesn't go away in counties with very low cases. It goes away (temporarily), when people stay away from each other. The virus doesn't care if your community is 5000 people or 5 million. Give the virus a few weeks, and even small groups hanging out together for an hour or two, and the number of cases won't stay "very low." Those factories in rural counties, now dealing with 1000 infections and growing, all started with one infected person.
What? It’s a man’s opinion. Why would there be peer reviewed math on the cost of something that hasn’t been determined? Forgive me for not understanding.
You trust economists, but keep in mind that if you ask 100 economists the same question you will get 100 different answers - most of them driven by their personal politics.
So at what point do we do say it’s okay to go out? Never? In a year and half when we have a vaccine? The point of social distancing was to slow the spread. So hospitals could take care of the small percentage of people who need medical care and not be overrun. Not to prevent people from getting it.
Does anyone believe prolonged closures can't affect our food supply or permanently shutter businesses? Why is it wrong to carry on in a measured way? There's nothing wrong with the able-bodied helping those at high risk.
I was responding to someone else’s quote who said there should be peer reviewed data on this person’s opinion.
I think that we have to, but we have to figure out how. What GA is doing - that aint gonna work out for them. They will be locked down again in a few weeks when the more patient states are opening up in a more safe way.
The problem is that that is not necessarily what science or history tell us. The human race as does a rather poor job at building herd immunity to respiratory viruses as a whole-and corona viruses. Immunity to influenza is transitory and requires annual vaccination-three is no herd immunity other than what is confered by those vaccinations-otherwise you can catch it every single year. One can have what we refer to as a common cold more than once a season let alone once a year. The primary causes of common colds are adenoviruses, rhinovirus and a corona virus. There is only transitory immunity to any of those. For herd immunity to be effective about 70 percent of the population has to have antibodies. This corona virus has a high R0 and if immunity is, as other viruses of this type, transitory, it will take an annual vaccination program participated in by 70 percent of the world population to eradicate it. The likely hood of that happening, particularly in the current antiscience environment is nil. The best that can be expected is that enough people develop transitory immunity in this pandemic to knock it back to a manageable level while we develop a vaccination program. Since we know there are mutations occurring there will of course be times when, like influenza, it s more virulent than others. It will likely never go away but one hopes we can develop reasonable treatments that will mitigate the symptoms and reduce, at least in the majority of years, the death rate to an acceptable level. No we can not leave our economy on hold for ever, or even for much longer,, but every day we give science time to find the treatment that will let those to do get infected live and provide more data on the type of immunity that is confered-the better off the world will be.
Because if he seriously wanted to change the path we are on, the economist would take the steps necessary to convince people that his path is the right one. The Stanford antibody study people believe in a similar strategy, only they went out, tested people, did some calculations on what it means, and put it out there. It hasn't exactly gone well, but they put their money where their mouth was, and recognized that they weren't going to change minds based on a letter.
I asked why there would be peer reviewed data on someone’s opinion.
Good points about giving time for scientists to figure out effective treatments. But I do fear our economy is on the brink now.
They are not enough alone or with other things to me. Each of us has priorities that decide which course of action we would prefer. I have explained mine. I can see and respect those that differ from mine.
better start planting your garden
