I like COVID 19

[Shadow277]

That answer would suggest you don't actually know !

Neither have any of your fallacious retorts.

Sponsored

 

[Caballus]

Looks like the French are going to be the first to get antibody testing underway, authorising 4000 labs from tomorrow to do the testing. They intend to carry out large scale testing as a precursor to releasing from lockdown within a few weeks, but will initially prioritise key workers. Once antibody positive the risk of spreading COVID is minimal (other than direct physical transmission from contaminated surfaces). Allowing immune workers to get back to work is key to the transition back to normal. The other huge benefit to the whole world is that it seems likely France will be the first to establish the level of 'herd immunity' identifying those that have had the virus but remained asymptomatic. This information will enable other countries to refine their approaches based on proper epidemiological data rather than working largely blind.

That's good news except for the herd immunity part, which many "renowned experts" argue is not a viable solution with COVID-19, because there is no vaccine for it. This is why the UK abandoned the idea to begin with. The math(s) don't add up.

"Until we have a vaccine, anyone talking about herd immunity as a preventative strategy for COVID-19 is simply wrong. Fortunately, there are other ways of preventing infections from spreading, which all boil down to avoiding people who are sick."

https://www.sciencealert.com/why-herd-immunity-will-not-save-us-from-the-covid-19-pandemic

https://www.healthline.com/health/herd-immunity#covid-19-and-herd-immunity

 

[Docscurlock]

"Until we have a vaccine, anyone talking about herd immunity as a preventative strategy for COVID-19 is simply wrong. Fortunately, there are other ways of preventing infections from spreading, which all boil down to avoiding people who are sick."

Kinda like STD's.

 

[UserName]

Kinda like STD's.

Friends who share are friends that care!

 

[Gregs24]

i think it is important to understand that 'herd immunity' is not a strategy but the end result. COVID19 has an R0 of somewhere around 2.5 to 3.0 which means that when 60% of the population become immune transmission will fizzle out. This is a mathematical simplification but not a million miles from reality in simplistic terms.

How you reach that 60% is the strategy. Immunity can be achieved by artificial (vaccination) or natural (infection) ways and the reality is that the natural challenge will be the main source of immunity initially bolstered by vaccination later. It will be a product of both. Herd immunity is not WRONG - it will happen and is happening - all countries are using controlled infection by social distancing or lockdown (lockdown reduces the R0 to around 0.6) to modify the spread of the disease but nobody is stopping the spread permanently. It's about management of spread to keep it within the resources available in healthcare if possible.

How do you come out of lockdown ? That depends on how many people are immune (as more become immune the R0 effectively drops as 'available' hosts reduce as a percentage of total population) and then balancing spread against the economic impacts of full lockdown. It will be neither quick not easy

 

[Docscurlock]

Immunity can be achieved by artificial (vaccination) or natural (infection) ways and the reality is that the natural challenge will be the main source of immunity initially bolstered by vaccination later

There is no data to prove that natural infection infers immunity in fact there have been cases of reinfection. Until that is determined or a vaccine is approved, all your talk of herd immunity is bunk.

 

[Caballus]

i think it is important to understand that 'herd immunity' is not a strategy but the end result. COVID19 has an R0 of somewhere around 2.5 to 3.0 which means that when 60% of the population become immune transmission will fizzle out. This is a mathematical simplification but not a million miles from reality in simplistic terms.

How you reach that 60% is the strategy. Immunity can be achieved by artificial (vaccination) or natural (infection) ways and the reality is that the natural challenge will be the main source of immunity initially bolstered by vaccination later. It will be a product of both. Herd immunity is not WRONG - it will happen and is happening - all countries are using controlled infection by social distancing or lockdown (lockdown reduces the R0 to around 0.6) to modify the spread of the disease but nobody is stopping the spread permanently. It's about management of spread to keep it within the resources available in healthcare if possible.

How do you come out of lockdown ? That depends on how many people are immune (as more become immune the R0 effectively drops as 'available' hosts reduce as a percentage of total population) and then balancing spread against the economic impacts of full lockdown. It will be neither quick not easy

According to actual experts the required infection rate is not 60%; it's 70%. ("With this number, the proportion of people who need to be infected is lower (than mumps) but still high, sitting at around 70 percent of the entire population.") Either way, it is a "super majority" of the population.

Consider that en route to 70%, a significant number will die--the susceptible. Further, there is no vaccine. ("If we have a vaccine, we may be able to develop herd immunity against this virus in the future. This would mean getting the SARS-CoV-2 in specific doses and making sure the majority of the world’s population is vaccinated.") So, the only path to herd immunity is natural infection, which brings us back to the associated death rate and the reason nations are not stopping the spread--there is currently no medical means for stopping it.

If you know one, share it. Also, since you insist that herd immunity is happening, provide a time frame.

Again, what you are saying is counter to what the renowned experts (cited) are saying.

 

[Hack]

There is no data to prove that natural infection infers immunity in fact there have been cases of reinfection. Until that is determined or a vaccine is approved, all your talk of herd immunity is bunk.

Wouldn't the fact that they are trying to develop a vaccine suggest that the experts believe there is a good chance that people can develop antibodies to prevent reinfection?

The only data we have about immunity is that people become immune to most viruses. But we do have that data.

 

[Caballus]

Wouldn't the fact that they are trying to develop a vaccine suggest that the experts believe there is a good chance that people can develop antibodies to prevent reinfection?

The only data we have about immunity is that people become immune to most viruses. But we do have that data.

It is reasonable to assume that people will develop an immunity. This assumption underlies efforts to develop a vaccine. However, like all assumptions, it must be validated through the scientific process. That process is inherent to vaccine development. If no immunity; no vaccine. As we know, scientists continue to experiment with vaccines for HiV, to no avail. Doesn't mean they should give up...

 

[Docscurlock]

Wouldn't the fact that they are trying to develop a vaccine suggest that the experts believe there is a good chance that people can develop antibodies to prevent reinfection?

The only data we have about immunity is that people become immune to most viruses. But we do have that data.

This isn't most viruses, it is worse than a lot. I said we don't know if infection offers immunity, there have been some cases reported of reinfection. Why do I have to worry about Influenza next year if I had it this year? Until we know if infection gives you immunity from reinfection all this talk about herd immunity is worthless. Until we have an effective vaccine all this talk about herd immunity is worthless.

 

[Gregs24]

There is no data to prove that natural infection infers immunity in fact there have been cases of reinfection. Until that is determined or a vaccine is approved, all your talk of herd immunity is bunk.

On the contrary natural infection obviously confers immunity - you wouldn't get better if it didn't. There are no cases of re-infection confirmed and any suspected case is likely down to extended viral excretion or inaccurate testing. Any odd anecdotal cases are not a majority.

Why you have a problem with 'herd immunity' I don't know. That is exactly the process for all diseases - how do you think measles is controlled - by herd immunity. There are two ways of deriving immunity, natural infection or vaccination. Please think for a moment how vaccination works - you introduce the viral antigen to the animal to challenge the immune system in exactly the same way as the natural infection, the crucial difference being that the vaccine is either a live inactivated or dead strain of the virus so that it will not cause disease. The animals immune system doesn't know that and uses the same process to create immunity. If natural infection doesn't produce immunity then neither will a vaccine.

Mathematically the required percentage to provide herd immunity is an exact relationship to the R0 value so an R0 of 2.5 means 60%, if the R0 is slightly higher it is 70%. Currently the R0 for COVID19 is thought to be 2.5 but it will change.

As regards the longevity of immunity (to natural or vaccinal challenge) it depends on the nature of the immunity and what antibodies are involved, as well as how mutable the virus is. For coronaviruses in general immunity for months / years is normal.

 

[Gregs24]

Wouldn't the fact that they are trying to develop a vaccine suggest that the experts believe there is a good chance that people can develop antibodies to prevent reinfection?

The only data we have about immunity is that people become immune to most viruses. But we do have that data.

Spot on. As explained if the immune system doesn't generate antibodies and an immune reaction you will die. Vaccination simply challenges the immune system in a safe way rather than you having to fight the actual disease. First discovered by Edward Jenner who stumbled upon that an infection with cow pox provided cross immunity against small pox

 

[Gregs24]

This isn't most viruses, it is worse than a lot. I said we don't know if infection offers immunity, there have been some cases reported of reinfection. Why do I have to worry about Influenza next year if I had it this year? Until we know if infection gives you immunity from reinfection all this talk about herd immunity is worthless. Until we have an effective vaccine all this talk about herd immunity is worthless.

Worse ? define worse

You need to worry about influenza about every 3 years because it rapidly mutates and the immunity to the virus this year will not help you with the mutated virus after about 3 years. There is a degree of cross immunity for a couple of years as the mutations are subtle. Changes to the surface antigens

 

[Caballus]

The experts are wrong.

 

[Gregs24]

Just to reiterate - herd immunity is not really a strategy but is where we will end up. If allowed to run it's course naturally then there would be an explosive number of cases (overwhelming medical facilities) and a huge number of deaths but that would be the quickest way to reach the 60% or 70% target you determine is required. That is why unchecked pandemics occur and then fizzle out. Then the virus either largely vanishes or mutates sufficiently that the natural immunity is inadequate and so spread starts again with peaks and troughs in disease. This is entirely normal.

We choose to moderate the deaths (obviously) by modification of spread - lockdowns (which as I said reduce the R0 below 1) or vaccination which has the same effect by reducing the available hosts for the virus.

It really isn't anything new and applies to pretty much every virus in existence

Sponsored