Coronovirus III

[Alpo]

[/B]
Do you really believe that? That there is only one variable. That would be an extremely rare case.

Take a macro view, amigo. There is too much picking the fly **** out of the pepper on this site.

We are talking MILLIONS of people. The law of large numbers applies.

 

[jamil]

?

Lot of New Yorkers out breaking the "stay at home" orders.
Am I supposed to believe it's just the "right wing nutcases"?

Well, that's what they say on the news.

 

[BugI02]

Yeah...wish I'd have been there. Probably just another right wing nutcase

In [Troll]space no one can hear you [STRIKE]scream[/STRIKE] [bloviate]

 

[Alpo]

You are developing a particularly nasty mean streak. Your agitprop payments late this month?

 

[nonobaddog]

All of which can be true, along with the belief that the same number of people (specifically Americans) will be exposed over time with or without those things you mention.

Exposed.

Same number of people exposed.

Actually no. When a population reaches herd immunity the disease stops spreading and the last cases reach their terminal state - either survival or death. If you reach herd immunity at 90% a certain number of people remain unexposed and uninfected. If you reach herd immunity at 70% a greater number of people remain unexposed and uninfected.

Unless you mean something else by "exposed". Exposed is not a statistic tracked by anyone and would be difficult to quantify. Not sure why the stress on "exposed".

 

[HoughMade]

Chinese University of Pittsburgh professor ‘on the verge of making very significant findings’ on COVID19 killed in apparent murder-suicide

Let me guess. He worked alone, no team, kept all the data to himself and it was all contained on a single flash drive that has gone missing.

...'cause that how university level research works.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Yeah...wish I'd have been there. Probably just another right wing nutcase

I’ll never understand why people wanna make everything political.

 

[nonobaddog]

Take a macro view, amigo. There is too much picking the fly **** out of the pepper on this site.

We are talking MILLIONS of people. The law of large numbers applies.

There are obviously many variables. Time is only one of them. I don't think you actually meant time is the ONLY variable.

 

[T.Lex]

Actually no. When a population reaches herd immunity the disease stops spreading and the last cases reach their terminal state - either survival or death. If you reach herd immunity at 90% a certain number of people remain unexposed and uninfected. If you reach herd immunity at 70% a greater number of people remain unexposed and uninfected.

Unless you mean something else by "exposed". Exposed is not a statistic tracked by anyone and would be difficult to quantify. Not sure why the stress on "exposed".

Again, talking around each other.

Herd immunity does not eradicate the infection-agent from existence. It is shorthand to say that there are enough people who don't spread it to each other so that it is effectively stopped.

Until there is a vaccine (which was part of Alpo's post), the only way to get such herd immunity is by exposure.

To use your framework, until there is a vaccine, the magic number of people is the number of people who need to be exposed in order to reach "herd immunity." That number will be reached within X amount of time. That X can either be a long time with SIP orders, or a short time with full re-opening (with associated complications to society). And there's lots of middle ground with varying amounts of time factored in.

Again, until there is a vaccine, that magic number will be reached and the only question is when.

 

[Dead Duck]

Again, talking around each other.

Herd immunity does not eradicate the infection-agent from existence. It is shorthand to say that there are enough people who don't spread it to each other so that it is effectively stopped.

Until there is a vaccine (which was part of Alpo's post), the only way to get such herd immunity is by exposure.

To use your framework, until there is a vaccine, the magic number of people is the number of people who need to be exposed in order to reach "herd immunity." That number will be reached within X amount of time. That X can either be a long time with SIP orders, or a short time with full re-opening (with associated complications to society). And there's lots of middle ground with varying amounts of time factored in.

Again, until there is a vaccine, that magic number will be reached and the only question is when.

Is that like a verbal reach around?

 

[BugI02]

I think we're (collectively) talking around each other on this. Go back and read Alpo's post (and probably chip's) again.

Exposure is not the same as infection which is not the same as immunity.

When you say "herd immunity" you are basically saying "widespread exposure." And, reducing R0 by behavior ignores the practical reality that such behavior changes do not scale in terms of geography or time. Closing a school for 2 weeks that has a flu outbreak and changing the behavior to reduce the local R0 is fine, and a valid strategy. But that doesn't scale to a national population of 300M for 6 months.

Plus, I'm not sure the "herd immunity threshold" is what you're saying it is, but I also can't figure out how to explain it. So I'll leave it alone.

Not my area of expertise either, but herd immunity would seem to be related to statistical probability. Related to population density because the number of people daily life causes you to interact with goes up at greater densities, and related to R0 because a higher R0 means a greater likelihood of infection in the likely/unlikely event you encounter an infected individual. I also wonder if R0 isn't intrinsic, how infectious (ie: likelihood to spread in the event of incidental contact) a given disease is doesn't change, changing the rate of incidental contact changes the infection rate, but not the R0. It's quite possible I'm wrong, but my understanding of R0 is it is a sort of coefficient of infectiousness

So increasing the number of infected (which increases the likelihood that people one interacts with are immune and non-transmissive) would achieve the same result as decreasing the number of people interacted with (SIP)

 

[nonobaddog]

Again, talking around each other.

Herd immunity does not eradicate the infection-agent from existence. It is shorthand to say that there are enough people who don't spread it to each other so that it is effectively stopped.

Until there is a vaccine (which was part of Alpo's post), the only way to get such herd immunity is by exposure.

To use your framework, until there is a vaccine, the magic number of people is the number of people who need to be exposed in order to reach "herd immunity." That number will be reached within X amount of time. That X can either be a long time with SIP orders, or a short time with full re-opening (with associated complications to society). And there's lots of middle ground with varying amounts of time factored in.

Again, until there is a vaccine, that magic number will be reached and the only question is when.

What is your "exposure"? Definition?
The magic number of people is the number of people who need to be immune(either by surviving infection or vaccination) not "exposed" in order to reach "herd immunity.

 

[chipbennett]

Take a macro view, amigo. There is too much picking the fly **** out of the pepper on this site.

We are talking MILLIONS of people. The law of large numbers applies.

I mean, come on: when Alpo and I are in such staunch agreement on something, it ought to make one think.

A virus like this, you can't contain. It only works with a virus like Ebola because that virus burns itself out so quickly. The time from exposure to asymptomatic contagion to symptomatic to death is hours to days. It's pretty easy to see, pretty quickly, where there is contagion, and to contain it.

In the grand scheme of viruses, COVID-19 is pretty run-of-the-mill. The time from exposure to asymptomatic contagion to symptomatic to death is days to weeks. There is no way to contain it. It is going to run its course, no matter what we do.

The area under the curve does not change, regardless how much you change the time-scale of the curve. Whether it happens in days, months, weeks, or years, the same number of people will eventually be exposed, that exposure will result in the same rate of infection, and that infection will result in the same rate of death.

 

[HoughMade]

So the "exposed and contract" is more accurate than "exposed"....moving on....

 

[BugI02]

You are developing a particularly nasty mean streak. Your agitprop payments late this month?

[h=1]Forum: Break Room[/h]General off-topic NON-FIREARMS related discussion goes here! PS: No Politics! [emphasis mine]

 

[chipbennett]

Again, talking around each other.

Herd immunity does not eradicate the infection-agent from existence. It is shorthand to say that there are enough people who don't spread it to each other so that it is effectively stopped.

Until there is a vaccine (which was part of Alpo's post), the only way to get such herd immunity is by exposure.

To use your framework, until there is a vaccine, the magic number of people is the number of people who need to be exposed in order to reach "herd immunity." That number will be reached within X amount of time. That X can either be a long time with SIP orders, or a short time with full re-opening (with associated complications to society). And there's lots of middle ground with varying amounts of time factored in.

Again, until there is a vaccine, that magic number will be reached and the only question is when.

Yep. All "herd immunity" means is that an infected person is more likely to expose people already immune to the infection, which results in no transmission of the virus.

But even with "herd immunity", if an uninfected person who has not previously been exposed to the virus is exposed to that infected person, the likelihood of that single person-to-person transmission from infected person to an exposed not-infected-not-immune person remains exactly the same for the virus in question as it did before so-called "herd immunity" existed.

 

[printcraft]

Let me guess. He worked alone, no team, kept all the data to himself and it was all contained on a single flash drive that has gone missing.

...'cause that how university level research works.

 

[chipbennett]

Not my area of expertise either, but herd immunity would seem to be related to statistical probability. Related to population density because the number of people daily life causes you to interact with goes up at greater densities, and related to R0 because a higher R0 means a greater likelihood of infection in the likely/unlikely event you encounter an infected individual. I also wonder if R0 isn't intrinsic, how infectious (ie: likelihood to spread in the event of incidental contact) a given disease is doesn't change, changing the rate of incidental contact changes the infection rate, but not the R0. It's quite possible I'm wrong, but my understanding of R0 is it is a sort of coefficient of infectiousness

So increasing the number of infected (which increases the likelihood that people one interacts with are immune and non-transmissive) would achieve the same result as decreasing the number of people interacted with (SIP)

Only within a given time-frame. Across time as a whole, as long as the virus remains viable and is being transmitted, the end result is still the same number of people becoming infected.

Social distancing is not and cannot be absolute, this side of The Matrix.

 

[chipbennett]

What is your "exposure"? Definition?
The magic number of people is the number of people who need to be immune(either by surviving infection or vaccination) not "exposed" in order to reach "herd immunity.

This side of a vaccine, to become immune, one must first be infected. To become infected, one must first be exposed.

So, pretend he said immune, instead of exposed. His point remains valid, regardless.

 

[Ingomike]

Wow, really?!?



It always was, and it was explained to be at the time that "flatten the curve" became the policy focus.

It is also obvious. So-called "herd immunity" only develops once the virus spreads enough for said herd immunity to be built up. That only happens through spread of viral infection. Mortality is a function of infection. If you get infected, you have the same risk of dying, regardless of how quickly the virus is spreading when you get infected. Even if you "flatten the curve" until the virus spreads to no more than one person at a time, the area under the curve will be the same.

Again, talking around each other.

Herd immunity does not eradicate the infection-agent from existence. It is shorthand to say that there are enough people who don't spread it to each other so that it is effectively stopped.

Until there is a vaccine (which was part of Alpo's post), the only way to get such herd immunity is by exposure.

To use your framework, until there is a vaccine, the magic number of people is the number of people who need to be exposed in order to reach "herd immunity." That number will be reached within X amount of time. That X can either be a long time with SIP orders, or a short time with full re-opening (with associated complications to society). And there's lots of middle ground with varying amounts of time factored in.

Again, until there is a vaccine, that magic number will be reached and the only question is when.

You guys are great at explaining this...

I get it...