Coronovirus III

[BugI02]

Agreed. I see that the percentage of immune people in a population necessary to achieve herd immunity is ( 1 - 1/R0), but if R0 is a malleable quantity, than anytime it goes below 1 herd immunity is achieved at 0% (or less) population immunity, which seems a nonsense result

Immediately locking everyone in solo isolation at the start of an outbreak would not achieve herd immunity

 

[Twangbanger]

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.

Holy smokes...logical people are making their presence known on INGO...you have inspired me to leave my house and buy a lottery ticket (you're welcome, Eric Holcomb).

 

[nonobaddog]

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.

He made the point of stressing "exposed", not me.
I know the difference.
But fine with me, I will pretend he said it right.

"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."

 

[printcraft]

A shocking number of Republicans doubt official coronavirus death tolls

**** really?! I wonder why?

[video=youtube;Mb3gkJpS9sE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb3gkJpS9sE&feature=youtu.be[/video]

 

[nonobaddog]

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.

Maybe it would help if you both read some more about epidemiology?

 

[T.Lex]

He made the point of stressing "exposed", not me.
I know the difference.
But fine with me, I will pretend he said it right.

Well, that's only logical since you pretended the original post was wrong.

Maybe it would help if you both read some more about epidemiology?

 

[HoughMade]

Maybe it would help if you both read some more about epidemiology?

Can I ask for a link, or.....

 

[Ingomike]

**** really?! I wonder why?

[video=youtube;Mb3gkJpS9sE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb3gkJpS9sE&feature=youtu.be[/video]

And trust me on this, the Trump voters know the CDC told them to make every death possible C-19 they could even if it wasn't tested so. They further know the the dems and media will do anything to make Trump look bad.

 

[T.Lex]

Can I ask for a link, or.....

nonobadhough

https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section10.html

Finally, some interventions attempt to prevent a pathogen from encountering a susceptible host. The concept of herd immunity suggests that if a high enough proportion of individuals in a population are resistant to an agent, then those few who are susceptible will be protected by the resistant majority, since the pathogen will be unlikely to “find” those few susceptible individuals. The degree of herd immunity necessary to prevent or interrupt an outbreak varies by disease. In theory, herd immunity means that not everyone in a community needs to be resistant (immune) to prevent disease spread and occurrence of an outbreak. In practice, herd immunity has not prevented outbreaks of measles and rubella in populations with immunization levels as high as 85% to 90%. One problem is that, in highly immunized populations, the relatively few susceptible persons are often clustered in subgroups defined by socioeconomic or cultural factors. If the pathogen is introduced into one of these subgroups, an outbreak may occur.

Actually some really interesting stuff there, in a lesson-plan type layout.

 

[Alpo]

Maybe it would help if you both read some more about epidemiology?

It's Newtonian, dude. It holds true for elliptical orbits and other calculus. Unless you change the formula. Especially with group size in excess of a billion.

 

[HoughMade]

nonobadhough

https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section10.html

Actually some really interesting stuff there, in a lesson-plan type layout.

Well, yeah...but what should I read about epidemiology that will change all of our perspective on this?

Anyhoo,

Seeing people go all in on conspiracy theories on one end and seeing people take the "stay home or you are a murderer" stance, the uncomfortable truth I've been forced to confront is that...gulp...

I may be a moderate.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, yeah...but what should I read about epidemiology that will change all of our perspective on this?

Anyhoo,

Seeing people go all in on conspiracy theories on one end and seeing people take the "stay home or you are a murderer" stance, the uncomfortable truth I've been forced to confront is that...gulp...

I may be a moderate.

ha!

Don't worry, I'll vouch for your extremist bona fides.

But yeah, these are strange times.

 

[Alpo]

And now,

[video=youtube_share;EUrUfJW1JGk]http://youtu.be/EUrUfJW1JGk[/video]

 

[chipbennett]

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".

Actually, no. We have vaccine-based herd immunity to MMR, polio, smallpox, etc., but the un-vaccinated can still get them. That's why we still vaccinate, especially children, who are particularly vulnerable. Herd immunity doesn't cause a virus to disappear. That's why the influx of illegal aliens has caused a return in some of those previously-eradicated illnesses, like smallpox.

Maybe it would help if you read some more about epidemiology?

That doesn't really fit well with epidemiology.
You see Herd Immunity is a variable. It is not just a simple one-size-fits-all thing. I think some people here think it is a constant or something. With a very contagious disease herd immunity is higher than with a less contagious disease.
Herd Immunity for measles(R0 12-18) is about 92-95%. Herd Immunity for Ebola(R0 1.5-2.5) is only about 33-60%.

Actually, no. Herd immunity for Ebola is anywhere from 42 - 63% (100% effective vaccine) to 53 - 79% (80% effective vaccine) to more than 80%. Here, 80% is estimated, and herd immunity through prophylactic vaccination was deemed to be infeasible/unrealistic.

Maybe it would help if you read some more about epidemiology?

 

[chipbennett]

Can I ask for a link, or.....

Here's one that might work.

 

[chipbennett]

Tell me this has anything at all to do with "safety", rather than a leftwing judge upset that a free individual expressed appropriate contempt for his wanna-be tyranny:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...d-to-7-days-in-jail-for-remaining-open-during



Here's the Zoom video of her response:

[video]https://twitter.com/i/status/1257791119393533953[/video]

I particularly enjoyed the Obama-pal judge virtue signaling by wearing an N95 mask (improperly fitted, natch, since he was wearing it over a beard) in an empty courtroom during a video hearing.

If any of this had anything to do with "safety", the judge's contempt order would include a civil fine only, and perhaps house arrest. This is nothing more than a vassal refusing to kiss the ring of her big-government feudal lord.

Update: it seems that Texas Gov. Abbott and his AG agree:

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/05/06...ase-jailed-dallas-salon-owner-shelley-luther/

AG Paxton:

“I find it outrageous and out of touch that during this national pandemic, a judge, in a county that actually released hardened criminals for fear of contracting COVID-19, would jail a mother for operating her hair salon in an attempt to put food on her family’s table,” said Attorney General Paxton. “The trial judge did not need to lock up Shelley Luther. His order is a shameful abuse of judicial discretion, which seems like another political stunt in Dallas. He should release Ms. Luther immediately.”

Gov. Abbott:

“I join the Attorney General in disagreeing with the excessive action by the Dallas Judge, putting Shelley Luther in jail for seven days. As I have made clear through prior pronouncements, jailing Texans for non-compliance with executive orders should always be the last available option. Compliance with executive orders during this pandemic is important to ensure public safety; however, surely there are less restrictive means to achieving that goal than jailing a Texas mother.”

 

[HoughMade]

Update: it seems that Texas Gov. Abbott and his AG agree:

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/05/06...ase-jailed-dallas-salon-owner-shelley-luther/

AG Paxton:


Gov. Abbott:

If the locals don't get the hint, pardon her.

 

[nonobaddog]

Originally Posted by nonobaddog

Actually no. When a population reaches herd immunity the disease stops spreading and the last cases reach their terminal state - either survival or death.

Actually, no. We have vaccine-based herd immunity to MMR, polio, smallpox, etc., but the un-vaccinated can still get them. That's why we still vaccinate, especially children, who are particularly vulnerable. Herd immunity doesn't cause a virus to disappear. That's why the influx of illegal aliens has caused a return in some of those previously-eradicated illnesses, like smallpox.

Just reread the part you highlighted. Where does it say the virus disappears?
What it does say is the disease stops spreading.
The virus could be alive and well and hiding in some bat waiting... waiting... but that has nothing to do with the herd immunity we were talking about that stops the spread of the disease.

 

[T.Lex]

Just reread the part you highlighted. Where does it say the virus disappears?
What it does say is the disease stops spreading.
The virus could be alive and well and hiding in some bat waiting... waiting... but that has nothing to do with the herd immunity we were talking about that stops the spread of the disease.

I'm starting to think there's some more confusion than I first thought.

With herd immunity, the spread stops because all of the available hosts are immune (by antibody or vaccine, basically). It does not stop spreading among non-immune hosts.

If new, non-immune hosts become available, then there is an outbreak. Or epidemic. Or pandemic.

This is a novel virus. We are all available hosts.

Or are you saying that all carriers should be identified and segregated until their case resolves? To let it "burn out" in the population that has been infected?

 

[nonobaddog]

I'm starting to think there's some more confusion than I first thought.

With herd immunity, the spread stops because all of the available hosts are immune (by antibody or vaccine, basically). It does not stop spreading among non-immune hosts.

If new, non-immune hosts become available, then there is an outbreak. Or epidemic. Or pandemic.

This is a novel virus. We are all available hosts.

Or are you saying that all carriers should be identified and segregated until their case resolves? To let it "burn out" in the population that has been infected?

No, herd immunity does not mean ALL hosts are immune.
It does mean that enough hosts are immune that they protect the remaining non-immune hosts. It is a statistical thing. All of the immune hosts are barricades to the transmission of the virus so some number of non-immune hosts never get infected.