Coronovirus III

[chipbennett]

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.

Statistical "immunity" != physical immunity (or, more precisely, protection against infection). A non-immune person may be statistically less-likely to become infected (due to decreased likelihood of exposure) in a herd immunity scenario, but if that non-immune person is exposed to an infected person, that non-immune person is just as likely to become infected as he would be in a non-herd-immunity scenario.

I think that's where we aren't seeing eye-to-eye.

 

[foszoe]

The only way chips statement is false is if a vaccine is developed.

That is an assumption. Personally I don't believe in that assumption.

 

[nonobaddog]

A non-immune person may be statistically less-likely to become infected (due to decreased likelihood of exposure) in a herd immunity scenario,

That is what I said. That describes herd immunity.

but if that non-immune person is exposed to an infected person, that non-immune person is just as likely to become infected as he would be in a non-herd-immunity scenario.

Agree. This describes normal contagion transmission.

 

[foszoe]

What evidence would convince you one way or the other?

I wonder how many others are asymptomatic / pre-symptomatic with TB, pneumonia, seasonal flu, china flu, colds, hepatitis, measles and such? How do we protect ourselves from people? Is the stay at home "order" a tiny band-aide on a large cut? What have we truly learned here and how will it be applied to the subjects at a later date? How does the government plan to save us all, from all things?

Did we really flatten the curve or did it flatten by itself? If "we" did flatten the curve, have we only postponed the inevitable? For how long will it be flattened?

 

[foszoe]

but...you did!!!

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

 

[foszoe]

I thought herd immunity was when a certain % of a population was immune. I didn't know that spread stops. I could see it where it was not exponential. IE herd immunity meant that was a limit constraining the number infected. Sure some get it here and there, but it burns out against the wall of herd immunity.

Maybe I should read some more about epidemiology.

nah that's what I have you guys for.

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.

 

[HoughMade]

I thought herd immunity was when a certain % of a population was immune. I didn't know that spread stops. I could see it where it was not exponential. IE herd immunity meant that was a limit constraining the number infected. Sure some get it here and there, but it burns out against the wall of herd immunity.

Maybe I should read some more about epidemiology.

nah that's what I have you guys for.

I think you are right. A few cases here or there or even pockets of "epidemics" are not a society-wide problem. That's all we really need.

 

[nonobaddog]

but it burns out against the wall of herd immunity.

Yes. That is herd immunity. When it stops spreading throughout the herd because there are enough immune herd members to block further transmission.

 

[Twangbanger]

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.

I get what you are saying. I'm not an expert in this stuff. But it seems to me that what herd immunity really does, is it reduces the "effective" transmissibility of the pathogen in the population. Everybody is not assumed to be immune. One theoretically-equivalent "unit of vulnerability" (ie, unexposed person) still has some essentially-constant probability of contracting the pathogen when exposed to one theoretically-equivalent "unit of transmission" (ie, infected person). But because the overall probability of that vulnerable person actually coming in contact with a "hot" person in a population is reduced, you eventually reach some point where the aggregate rate of transmission is low enough that the pathogen has been "stopped" (ie, the pathogen is generally dying out in affected persons, before it has a chance to pass on to a new host).

I will need to read up on my R-sub-zero science, but since my background is chemistry, it seems analogous to what chemists call an "initial rates of reaction" phenomenon, where it is assumed the products of reaction have not built up enough to inhibit the reaction kinetics yet (ie, once things play out, and the reaction products start to build up in solution, the initial assumptions no longer apply). I could be wrong, but the R-sub-zero value seems to be describing the transmissibility of a pathogen in an "initial state" where immunity has not built up in the population yet.

I could be wrong about all the above, but am well-rested from sleeping-in in my non-Holiday Inn bed.

 

[Alpo]

And, has been shown in various outbreaks of whooping cough, mumps, measles and a few other diseases, herd immunity grants no one a free ride if they are not immunized.

 

[Twangbanger]

And, has been shown in various outbreaks of whooping cough, mumps, measles and a few other diseases, herd immunity grants no one a free ride if they are not immunized.

Right...it decreases their chances of encountering it (the so-called "free rider" benefit the unvaccinated receive from an immunized community), but if they do encounter it, all bets are off. It's the mathematical distinction between "aggregate" probability and single-case vulnerability.

 

[Alpo]

Sorry. I posted without seeing your very good remarks. I was responding to nnbd.

 

[nonobaddog]

I get what you are saying. I'm not an expert in this stuff. But it seems to me that what herd immunity really does, is it reduces the "effective" transmissibility of the pathogen in the population. Everybody is not assumed to be immune. One theoretically-equivalent "unit of vulnerability" (ie, unexposed person) still has some essentially-constant probability of contracting the pathogen when exposed to one theoretically-equivalent "unit of transmission" (ie, infected person). But because the overall probability of that vulnerable person actually coming in contact with a "hot" person in a population is reduced, you eventually reach some point where the aggregate rate of transmission is low enough that the pathogen has been "stopped" (ie, the pathogen is generally dying out in affected persons, before it has a chance to pass on to a new host).

I will need to read up on my R-sub-zero science, but since my background is chemistry, it seems analogous to what chemists call an "initial rates of reaction" phenomenon, where it is assumed the products of reaction have not built up enough to inhibit the reaction kinetics yet (ie, once things play out, and the reaction products start to build up in solution, the initial assumptions no longer apply). I could be wrong, but the R-sub-zero value seems to be describing the transmissibility of a pathogen in an "initial state" where immunity has not built up in the population yet.

I could be wrong about all the above, but am well-rested from sleeping-in in my non-Holiday Inn bed.

Right!
Herd Immunity is the protection of the non-immune herd members by being surrounded by many immune herd members. There are probably a million ways to say it. Here are some from the webernet.

CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html#c
Community immunity: A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are offered some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community. Also known as herd immunity.

NIH
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21427399
The term "herd immunity" is widely used but carries a variety of meanings. Some authors use it to describe the proportion immune among individuals in a population. Others use it with reference to a particular threshold proportion of immune individuals that should lead to a decline in incidence of infection. Still others use it to refer to a pattern of immunity that should protect a population from invasion of a new infection. A common implication of the term is that the risk of infection among susceptible individuals in a population is reduced by the presence and proximity of immune individuals (this is sometimes referred to as "indirect protection" or a "herd effect").

NIH Paper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171704/
‘herd immunity’, defined as the indirect protection of unvaccinated persons, whereby an increase in the prevalence of vaccine-immunity prevents circulation of infectious agents in unvaccinated susceptible populations

Medical dictionary
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/herd+immunity
Herd immunity occurs when a significant proportion of the population (or the herd) have been vaccinated, and this provides protection for unprotected individuals. The larger the number of people who are vaccinated in a population, the lower the likelihood that a susceptible (unvaccinated) person will come into contact with the infection. It is more difficult for diseases to spread between individuals if large numbers are already immune, and the chain of infection is broken.

The herd immunity threshold is the proportion of a population that need to be immune in order for an infectious disease to become stable in that community. If this is reached—for example due to immunisation—then each case leads to a single new case and the infection will become stable within the population, that is, R=1. If the threshold is surpassed, then R<1 and the disease will die out.

 

[MCgrease08]

See you later gang. I'm heading off to San Francisco to ride out the rest of the pandemic.

San Francisco gives drugs, alcohol to homeless addicts in hotels during coronavirus, sparking debate

 

[DoggyDaddy]

See you later gang. I'm heading off to San Francisco to ride out the rest of the pandemic.

San Francisco gives drugs, alcohol to homeless addicts in hotels during coronavirus, sparking debate

Par-tay!!

 

[nonobaddog]

See you later gang. I'm heading off to San Francisco to ride out the rest of the pandemic.

San Francisco gives drugs, alcohol to homeless addicts in hotels during coronavirus, sparking debate

The San Francisco Dept of Public Health said "Not paid for with taxpayer money"
and then the article says the Federal government is paying 75% of the costs for some of them.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

No more Stacked Pickle

https://www.indystar.com/story/ente...r0gf5OfluEsmjoGA4o-Bq_btTB_x1VYccZDwUduLlwsrI

 

[Sigblitz]

I'll just leave this here.

[video=youtube_share;nQJWCcZDVRY]https://youtu.be/nQJWCcZDVRY[/video]

 

[DoggyDaddy]

No more Stacked Pickle

https://www.indystar.com/story/ente...r0gf5OfluEsmjoGA4o-Bq_btTB_x1VYccZDwUduLlwsrI

Damn, that's a shame! I never ate there, but DoggyMama's niece worked at the one in Greenwood.

 

[HoughMade]

I'll just leave this here.

[video=youtube_share;nQJWCcZDVRY]https://youtu.be/nQJWCcZDVRY[/video]

Which of my Facebook friends share this with what comment determines a lot about what I think of their discernment.