• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No herd immunity, risk of a second wave

GreatNews2night

GreatNews2night

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
8,761
Reaction score
3,312
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This number has surprised me: the excellent University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, responsible for the most accepted epidemiological model of the US part of this pandemic, has mentioned that in their predictions, by the end of the first wave of contagion, we'll be left with 97% of the population still susceptible to the virus.

That is say more than I had assumed.

Our model says that social distancing will likely lead to the end of the first wave of the epidemic by early June. The question of whether there will be a second wave of the epidemic will depend on what we do to avoid reintroducing COVID-19 into the population. By end the of the first wave of the epidemic, an estimated 97% of the population of the United States will still be susceptible to the disease, so avoiding reintroduction of COVID-19 through mass screening, contact tracing, and quarantine will be essential to avoid a second wave.
Click to expand...

IHME COVID-19 model FAQs | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

So if this is true (I had assumed that more silent cases that went undiagnosed would have increased the number of the immune people contributing to herd immunity) we need to be very careful and very focused, lest we have a second wave before the vaccine is available.
 
GreatNews2night said:
This number has surprised me: the excellent University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, responsible for the most accepted epidemiological model of the US part of this pandemic, has mentioned that in their predictions, by the end of the first wave of contagion, we'll be left with 97% of the population still susceptible to the virus.

That is say more than I had assumed.



IHME COVID-19 model FAQs | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

So if this is true (I had assumed that more silent cases that went undiagnosed would have increased the number of the immune people contributing to herd immunity) we need to be very careful and very focused, lest we have a second wave before the vaccine is available.
Click to expand...

Let's all hide under rocks forever. After all, if we come out, something bad might happen.
 
GreatNews2night said:
This number has surprised me: the excellent University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, responsible for the most accepted epidemiological model of the US part of this pandemic, has mentioned that in their predictions, by the end of the first wave of contagion, we'll be left with 97% of the population still susceptible to the virus.

That is say more than I had assumed.



IHME COVID-19 model FAQs | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

So if this is true (I had assumed that more silent cases that went undiagnosed would have increased the number of the immune people contributing to herd immunity) we need to be very careful and very focused, lest we have a second wave before the vaccine is available.
Click to expand...

Well, with all due respect to these "metrics" experts, I don't agree.

In the first place, as pointed out time and again, we simply don't know how many people have actually been exposed.

Thus for every "confirmed case" there could be any number of people who have been exposed and either have a natural immunity making them asymptomatic, or have an immune system that is capable of defeating the virus after mild or moderate symptoms.

IMO for every confirmed case there could be 10 times as many people exposed and subsequently falling into either of the above categories.

There may also be a small number of immune carriers, like a "Typhoid Mary," who could cause the virus to spring up in previously victim-free areas.

I believe that this virus will persist much like similar viruses (Flu, Common Cold, HIV, etc.) but by then we'd have a larger pool of immunes who protect the susceptible via herd immunity.

Among those who beat this virus we could find samples of the virus that can be modified for anti-viral treatments similar to annual flu shots.

I'd predict that this would eventually be reduced to an annual, but tolerable, threat like "flu seasons."
 
Back of the envelope... 2 studies I heard about suggest either 0.66% or 0.37% true death rates (ones that account for all mild cases). 16k deaths today, at these rates, imply 2.4-4.3 million infections as of a few weeks ago. Due to 97% of population on lockdowns, the spread may not be too too great in the last couple weeks. So perhaps ~10 million infections today?

That's around 3% of US population implying 97% not being infected yet.

P.S. I wrote this just as I was thinking about it - interesting that it came to same kind of conclusion as what OP quoted.
 
GreatNews2night said:
This number has surprised me: the excellent University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, responsible for the most accepted epidemiological model of the US part of this pandemic, has mentioned that in their predictions, by the end of the first wave of contagion, we'll be left with 97% of the population still susceptible to the virus.

That is say more than I had assumed.



IHME COVID-19 model FAQs | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

So if this is true (I had assumed that more silent cases that went undiagnosed would have increased the number of the immune people contributing to herd immunity) we need to be very careful and very focused, lest we have a second wave before the vaccine is available.
Click to expand...

We need way more testing and far less modeling based on assumed data. If we tested 1M/day we could test everyone (once) in just under a year. The current bragging seems to be about our amazing, tremendous and best in the world capability to test 100K/day.
 
AmNat said:
Let's all hide under rocks forever. After all, if we come out, something bad might happen.
Click to expand...

Would you rather save lives from horrible COVID-19 deaths or get out a few weeks earlier?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We need way more testing and far less modeling based on assumed data. If we tested 1M/day we could test everyone (once) in just under a year. The current bragging seems to be about our amazing, tremendous and best in the world capability to test 100K/day.
Click to expand...

You can thank our narcissistic president for that. :thumbdown
 
My wife and I are not going to be lured into the Socialize, go to store and purchase, dining out with many humans, party down cause we are safe now stuff...crap. When a viable vaccine is made we'll join the human race again. The cost? Staying home and not spending a lot of money. I can live with that. (excuse the pun)
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well, with all due respect to these "metrics" experts, I don't agree.

In the first place, as pointed out time and again, we simply don't know how many people have actually been exposed.

Thus for every "confirmed case" there could be any number of people who have been exposed and either have a natural immunity making them asymptomatic, or have an immune system that is capable of defeating the virus after mild or moderate symptoms.

IMO for every confirmed case there could be 10 times as many people exposed and subsequently falling into either of the above categories.

There may also be a small number of immune carriers, like a "Typhoid Mary," who could cause the virus to spring up in previously victim-free areas.

I believe that this virus will persist much like similar viruses (Flu, Common Cold, HIV, etc.) but by then we'd have a larger pool of immunes who protect the susceptible via herd immunity.

Among those who beat this virus we could find samples of the virus that can be modified for anti-viral treatments similar to annual flu shots.

I'd predict that this would eventually be reduced to an annual, but tolerable, threat like "flu seasons."
Click to expand...

Ten times the confirmed cases still doesn't establish herd immunity.
 
HIP56948 said:
My wife and I are not going to be lured into the Socialize, go to store and purchase, dining out with many humans, party down cause we are safe now stuff...crap. When a viable vaccine is made we'll join the human race again. The cost? Staying home and not spending a lot of money. I can live with that. (excuse the pun)
Click to expand...

The $$ savings really was starting to add up, staying home, eating in, no gas, working from home, etc.

And then I bought another horse on Sunday. Ooops.
 
Deuce said:
Ten times the confirmed cases still doesn't establish herd immunity.
Click to expand...
Herd immunity (if it exists, which is not yet known), requires about 60% of the population be immune/exposed. That level of exposure would/will be devastating. An effective vaccine is a far more likely scenario. The latest predictions I have read suggest three waves, much like the pandemic of 1918.
 
GreatNews2night said:
This number has surprised me: the excellent University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, responsible for the most accepted epidemiological model of the US part of this pandemic, has mentioned that in their predictions, by the end of the first wave of contagion, we'll be left with 97% of the population still susceptible to the virus.

That is say more than I had assumed.



IHME COVID-19 model FAQs | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

So if this is true (I had assumed that more silent cases that went undiagnosed would have increased the number of the immune people contributing to herd immunity) we need to be very careful and very focused, lest we have a second wave before the vaccine is available.
Click to expand...
Don't buy it at all. They'll keep prophesying these 'waves' when in fact the common flu kills more people than thus particular virus.
The Completely Fraudulent COVID-19 Fatality Timeline: From 40 Million... to 2 Million... to 200,000... to 81,766... to 60,415 Deaths
 
cpwill said:
At some point, we have to.
Click to expand...

Have to what? Get out? Sure, but we'd better not do it too early, otherwise we're going to have to restart the clock and do this all over again. :(
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
Don't buy it at all. They'll keep prophesying these 'waves' when in fact the common flu kills more people than thus particular virus.
The Completely Fraudulent COVID-19 Fatality Timeline: From 40 Million... to 2 Million... to 200,000... to 81,766... to 60,415 Deaths
Click to expand...

You do know how forecasts work, right? That they are updated based on new data that comes in, right?

If you see death forecasts steadily decreasing, then that means that people are socially distancing as they are supposed to. What a concept, if we do what scientists say, good things happen! :thumbs:
 
Most people are going to get this eventually. The lockdowns aren't about preventing that from happening, but from preventing the health care system from collapsing due to overwhelm. The system can't handle flu season + a coronavirus that has an R0 above 1. What this should really be showing people is how under-resourced the health care system is and how much more infrastructure support is needed in that area of our society. This kind of pandemic was predicted years ago, with some big wigs talking about it in 2015 (like Bill Gates). It was only a matter of time, but not only did governments not prepare, they actually scaled back, like Trump cutting funding to the CDC epidemic preparedness planning.

So now the solution I guess is to lock down society every time a bad infection comes along, which is going to become increasingly frequent in the coming years, if projections are any indication. We should not let the government socially condition us to accept this lockdown lifestyle. People are accepting it right now because it's unprecedented and the fear factor is high, but eventually people are going to wake up and realize this is not realistic. We can't bankrupt the economy and put every human being into solitary confinement with their lives on hold every time a pathogen rolls along.

At some point we have to accept a certain level of loss in order to maintain function. I say that as someone who wouldn't want to lose a loved one to this... but what are our choices? My children aren't in school, indefinitely, and there are people in my immediate community who have on the verge of nervous breakdown from isolation. When the Black Death ravaged Europe, people still went to work and tried to function as best they could. And that plague was way worse than this. The flu pandemic of 1914, same thing. Many millions dead, but we still managed to fight a world war plus have a domestic economy. People just learned to live with death.

What this looks like to me is that our society has not really dealt with a severe trauma in a long time - and I mean real trauma, one that affects everybody and wasn't manufactured by human drama - and so our reaction is to try and deny it at all costs. We are so complacent and comfortable that we have forgotten how fragile life is. We are not immune to plagues and other catastrophes. It doesn't matter that this is the 21st century. We aren't immune to this. We can't hide from it forever.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Most people are going to get this eventually. The lockdowns aren't about preventing that from happening, but from preventing the health care system from collapsing due to overwhelm. The system can't handle flu season + a coronavirus that has an R0 above 1. What this should really be showing people is how under-resourced the health care system is and how much more infrastructure support is needed in that area of our society. This kind of pandemic was predicted years ago, with some big wigs talking about it in 2015 (like Bill Gates). It was only a matter of time, but not only did governments not prepare, they actually scaled back, like Trump cutting funding to the CDC epidemic preparedness planning.

So now the solution I guess is to lock down society every time a bad infection comes along, which is going to become increasingly frequent in the coming years, if projections are any indication. We should not let the government socially condition us to accept this lockdown lifestyle. People are accepting it right now because it's unprecedented and the fear factor is high, but eventually people are going to wake up and realize this is not realistic. We can't bankrupt the economy and put every human being into solitary confinement with their lives on hold every time a pathogen rolls along.

At some point we have to accept a certain level of loss in order to maintain function. I say that as someone who wouldn't want to lose a loved one to this... but what are our choices? My children aren't in school, indefinitely, and there are people in my immediate community who have on the verge of nervous breakdown from isolation. When the Black Death ravaged Europe, people still went to work and tried to function as best they could. And that plague was way worse than this. The flu pandemic of 1914, same thing. Many millions dead, but we still managed to fight a world war plus have a domestic economy. People just learned to live with death.

What this looks like to me is that our society has not really dealt with a severe trauma in a long time - and I mean real trauma, one that affects everybody and wasn't manufactured by human drama - and so our reaction is to try and deny it at all costs. We are so complacent and comfortable that we have forgotten how fragile life is. We are not immune to plagues and other catastrophes. It doesn't matter that this is the 21st century. We aren't immune to this. We can't hide from it forever.
Click to expand...

Latest estimate is that 82% will get it, which not to be overly argumentative is more than "Most".

"Vast Majority" maybe?
 
AmNat said:
Let's all hide under rocks forever. After all, if we come out, something bad might happen.
Click to expand...

No, let's be sensible and, unlike you, accept that this pandemic is killing people in the tens of thousands, globally. You might think you're invincible but you could be next, drowning in your own pus.
 
Northern Light said:
Most people are going to get this eventually. The lockdowns aren't about preventing that from happening, but from preventing the health care system from collapsing due to overwhelm. The system can't handle flu season + a coronavirus that has an R0 above 1. What this should really be showing people is how under-resourced the health care system is and how much more infrastructure support is needed in that area of our society. This kind of pandemic was predicted years ago, with some big wigs talking about it in 2015 (like Bill Gates). It was only a matter of time, but not only did governments not prepare, they actually scaled back, like Trump cutting funding to the CDC epidemic preparedness planning.

So now the solution I guess is to lock down society every time a bad infection comes along, which is going to become increasingly frequent in the coming years, if projections are any indication. We should not let the government socially condition us to accept this lockdown lifestyle. People are accepting it right now because it's unprecedented and the fear factor is high, but eventually people are going to wake up and realize this is not realistic. We can't bankrupt the economy and put every human being into solitary confinement with their lives on hold every time a pathogen rolls along.

At some point we have to accept a certain level of loss in order to maintain function. I say that as someone who wouldn't want to lose a loved one to this... but what are our choices? My children aren't in school, indefinitely, and there are people in my immediate community who have on the verge of nervous breakdown from isolation. When the Black Death ravaged Europe, people still went to work and tried to function as best they could. And that plague was way worse than this. The flu pandemic of 1914, same thing. Many millions dead, but we still managed to fight a world war plus have a domestic economy. People just learned to live with death.

What this looks like to me is that our society has not really dealt with a severe trauma in a long time - and I mean real trauma, one that affects everybody and wasn't manufactured by human drama - and so our reaction is to try and deny it at all costs. We are so complacent and comfortable that we have forgotten how fragile life is. We are not immune to plagues and other catastrophes. It doesn't matter that this is the 21st century. We aren't immune to this. We can't hide from it forever.
Click to expand...

I don't think people did "learn to live with death". They had no option; bubonic plague had unknown origins then, we had no anti-bacterial drugs to counter it and we were only just beginning to learn what a virus is back in 1918 (there was no pandemic in 1914). No, we can't hide forever, but we can do whatever it takes to mitigate the effects-and if that includes being locked down for months well, I prefer that to risking death.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
Have to what? Get out? Sure, but we'd better not do it too early, otherwise we're going to have to restart the clock and do this all over again. :(
Click to expand...
The point of shutting everything down wasn't too save every life. It was to keep the number of extreme cases requiring hospitalization below the max carrying capacity of our healthcare infrastructure. Estimates of our local are being cut dramatically, and it appears to be working. Ratchet- down decisions need to be made along those criteria, by local officials, evaluating local healthcare infrastructure caring capacity. This isn't a one-size-fits-all question.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
I don't recall any medical professional telling us we had to lock down forever. What I do know is I for one don't want to get sick and possibly die. Since the pro's are telling us that mitigation is definitely working, I see no reason to open things up prematurely. And trust me, If Trump gets his way, it will be way prematurely.

I understand the economy is taking a terrible hit. But if you start sending people back out to work and play too early, the hit to the economy will be even worse.

Moral of my story, don't follow Trump's dreams. He want's his rallies back and want's re-election. Can't blame him for that, but not at the cost of many more lives.

Listen to the doctors and ignore Trump/Fox.
 
Phys251 said:
Would you rather save lives from horrible COVID-19 deaths or get out a few weeks earlier?
Click to expand...

If you choose to live in a crowded city, you choose the risk. You don't get to keep everyone else under lock and key because you're a 'fraidy cat.
 
NWRatCon said:
Herd immunity (if it exists, which is not yet known), requires about 60% of the population be immune/exposed. That level of exposure would/will be devastating. An effective vaccine is a far more likely scenario. The latest predictions I have read suggest three waves, much like the pandemic of 1918.
Click to expand...

Of course herd immunity requires exposure! We can't and won't lock down forever nor does anyone really have the legal authority to do it. I'm more worried about Civil War 2 than Coronavirus Wave 2.
 
GreatNews2night said:
This number has surprised me: the excellent University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, responsible for the most accepted epidemiological model of the US part of this pandemic, has mentioned that in their predictions, by the end of the first wave of contagion, we'll be left with 97% of the population still susceptible to the virus.

That is say more than I had assumed.



IHME COVID-19 model FAQs | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

So if this is true (I had assumed that more silent cases that went undiagnosed would have increased the number of the immune people contributing to herd immunity) we need to be very careful and very focused, lest we have a second wave before the vaccine is available.
Click to expand...

Pure speculation, as is so much related to this fiasco.

Perhaps informed speculation, but speculation.

Talking on the phone yesterday with a young woman I used to work with, my count is now up to 11 for the number of cases of people reporting all the same symptoms, were not tested, and recovered.

As the numbers of cases begins to flatten or decline nationwide, my suspicions are that the herd immunity effect is growing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom