Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April
https://www.wsj.com/articles/well-have-herd-immunity-by-april-11613669731
313 comments
It should be noted that WSJ’s opinion section is extremely politicized. Their regular news desk is separately edited and maintains decently high journalistic standards.
It's pretty weird actually. The news desk for the WSJ is among the best out there. Their news stories tend to be really dry in a good way - full of facts and figures, with very little in the way of click bait hyperbole. Their subscriber model is all about business people who want the details and not opinion...
Which then makes the opinion desk at the WSJ a real oddball. It's consistently right-leaning, sometimes to the point of absurdity. I would think that a more varied field of opinion would resonate better with their target reader... but what do I know.
Which then makes the opinion desk at the WSJ a real oddball. It's consistently right-leaning, sometimes to the point of absurdity. I would think that a more varied field of opinion would resonate better with their target reader... but what do I know.
Every time I accidentally stumble on the opinion section, I think to myself "today is the day I cancel my subscription."
I'm hoping they Do Something about it. Just make it a separate $10/month add-on and see what the uptake is.
I'm hoping they Do Something about it. Just make it a separate $10/month add-on and see what the uptake is.
The weirdest part is this leads to frequent items where the Op-Ed page makes factual claims that are directly contradicted by the news section in the same issue.
The recent opinion section, no less by the Editorial Board, at WSJ claimed that focusing on renewable energy sources led to the Texas power cuts [1].
While the paper, on the same day itself, reported the opposite [2].
Links: 1) https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002... 2) https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-freeze-power-grid-failure...
While the paper, on the same day itself, reported the opposite [2].
Links: 1) https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002... 2) https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-freeze-power-grid-failure...
This isn't particularly unusual. The opinion section is a fine place for dissenting views. Consider a news article covering the abuse of elderly in a nursing home, with an opinion piece defending (or explaining, or whatever) the nursing home - this could be good.
There's a difference between explaining and defending the abuse the news-side reported, and saying that the abuse never happened and the news side is wrong/lying/etc.
Isn't that the point of Op-Ed sections, at the end of the day? It's always been a way for newspapers to host what's effectively a glorified collection of Medium posts. Even the New York Times' Opinion page is consistently partisan.
I'm not sure the New York Times is a good example here. It's definitely not just their opinion page that is partisan these days, and whilst this does seem to have gotten worse I'm not sure there was exactly a golden era - they seem to have always been particularly keen on pushing narratives.
Yeah, I don't disagree. My question was targeted more at folks that specifically find the WSJ Op-Ed to be objectionable; in my experience those same people tend to consider the NYT's Op-Ed to be less objectionable (caveat: I'm operating on an N of like 4).
The most internally consistent position, IMO, is that Op-Eds are all partisan and should all be abolished, in every paper. They once served a useful purpose, but are arguably no longer necessary in a world where everyone can post an opinionated blog post on Medium/Substack/etc and broadcast it out to the world via Twitter/Mastodon/etc more or less for free.
This article we're commenting on is just an interesting (if potentially dubious) blog post by a surgeon, and nothing more than that.
The most internally consistent position, IMO, is that Op-Eds are all partisan and should all be abolished, in every paper. They once served a useful purpose, but are arguably no longer necessary in a world where everyone can post an opinionated blog post on Medium/Substack/etc and broadcast it out to the world via Twitter/Mastodon/etc more or less for free.
This article we're commenting on is just an interesting (if potentially dubious) blog post by a surgeon, and nothing more than that.
[deleted]
"Op-Ed" literally means "Opposite the editorial page." It's a place in the newspaper specifically reserved for opinion, not news.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed
Huh. I'd always assumed it meant "opinions/editorials". But numerous reliable sources confirm what the Wikipedia page says. Nifty. Thanks.
It makes sense in a “game theory” kind of way. Writers/influencers will want a pulpit and a huge chunk of the population wants to read political rhetoric rather than dry news. I think I prefer this approach to something like NYT or (esp) WaPo where the news is so intermixed with the agenda that they are almost indistinguishable.
BBC with more extensive coverage (more than just the breaking news) would be my ideal model.
BBC with more extensive coverage (more than just the breaking news) would be my ideal model.
IMO, the Financial Times is a good alternative to WSJ.
Global perspective but still does deep dives into American issues; not owned by Murdoch; opinion desk not insane; soothing peach background color in both paper and online editions.
Global perspective but still does deep dives into American issues; not owned by Murdoch; opinion desk not insane; soothing peach background color in both paper and online editions.
I’m tempted to subscribe, if only it weren’t so comically expensive.
Not to mention the superb gardening column
This has generated tension within the WSJ itself: https://www.wsj.com/articles/wsj-journalists-ask-publisher-f...
isn't OP-ed synonym for what they generally disagree with (e.g. to allow them to claim they're "listening to both sides") ?
relevant example from this week is Australia, where editor in chief for the Murdoch conglomerate has no answer to why they banish all articles about climate change science to the Opinions sections.
https://twitter.com/ChaplainheArt/status/1363168269599973382
relevant example from this week is Australia, where editor in chief for the Murdoch conglomerate has no answer to why they banish all articles about climate change science to the Opinions sections.
https://twitter.com/ChaplainheArt/status/1363168269599973382
"op-ed" derived from "opposite the editorial page", i.e. recto to the editorial page's verso. In general, the op-eds do not vary that much from editorials. The NY Times always has conservative columnists that it runs, but they are not necessarily that far right.
I always thought it was Opinion/Editorial.
> It should be noted that WSJ’s opinion section is extremely politicized.
All opinion sections of every major news outlet is extremely politicized. In almost all cases, the non-opinion sections are edging towards being extremely politicized as well.
All opinion sections of every major news outlet is extremely politicized. In almost all cases, the non-opinion sections are edging towards being extremely politicized as well.
> What, the linked study proves the opposite. A massive amount of death in Manaus in 2021, despite 'herd immunity' measured in October 2020.
That is not a study. It is an editorial. It "proves" nothing, and instead advances a few alternative theories that might explain the discrepancy. However, it is not a complex situation. The following quote from the editorial is consistent with my personal belief after reading the original paper [1] that made the herd immunity claim:
"The 76% estimate of past infection might have been biased upwards due to adjustments to the observed 52·5% (95% CI 47·6–57·5) seroprevalence in June, 2020, to account for antibody waning."
This is true, but it understates the extent of the authors "adjustments". If you look at the original paper (Figure 2; linked below), they adjusted the raw data upward by a factor of about 3x. It is an...aggressive...modification to the raw data.
The parsimonious explanation for what is being observed in Manaus is that the Science paper claiming herd immunity was wrong. The authors of this Lancet editorial go to great lengths to advance alternative explanations involving "variants", but these are all unfounded, convoluted alternatives. The simplest explanation is that the original paper was wrong.
[1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6526/288
That is not a study. It is an editorial. It "proves" nothing, and instead advances a few alternative theories that might explain the discrepancy. However, it is not a complex situation. The following quote from the editorial is consistent with my personal belief after reading the original paper [1] that made the herd immunity claim:
"The 76% estimate of past infection might have been biased upwards due to adjustments to the observed 52·5% (95% CI 47·6–57·5) seroprevalence in June, 2020, to account for antibody waning."
This is true, but it understates the extent of the authors "adjustments". If you look at the original paper (Figure 2; linked below), they adjusted the raw data upward by a factor of about 3x. It is an...aggressive...modification to the raw data.
The parsimonious explanation for what is being observed in Manaus is that the Science paper claiming herd immunity was wrong. The authors of this Lancet editorial go to great lengths to advance alternative explanations involving "variants", but these are all unfounded, convoluted alternatives. The simplest explanation is that the original paper was wrong.
[1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6526/288
The latest episode of TWiV massacres the paper. It’s a good listen.
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-722/
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-722/
I definitely found an epidemiologist on Twitter giving out about that study. The Science study used a convenience sample, which makes me believe that it's a very biased estimate of sero-prevalance.
Yeah, there are possible issues with the way the Science paper collected their sample, as well. The authors of the Lancet editorial allude to this in the next sentence:
"furthermore, comparisons of blood donors with census data showed no major difference in a range of demographic variables, and the mandatory exclusion of donors with symptoms of COVID-19 is expected to underestimate the true population exposure to the virus."
Here, the Lancet writers are trying to argue that the sample wasn't that biased, and therefore the Science paper was right, and therefore the current infections are due to "variants".
It's a very weird and convoluted argument. Comparison to demographic variables is irrelevant, and the second sentence doesn't address the actual concern with the Science paper (i.e. testing in Brazil was rare at the time of the study, so people with Covid sought out the study). Regardless, I think it's a red herring. It doesn't matter if the sample was biased or not -- you can look at the data as collected, and see that the upward adjustments were so aggressive that the conclusion of the Science paper is likely to be wrong.
"furthermore, comparisons of blood donors with census data showed no major difference in a range of demographic variables, and the mandatory exclusion of donors with symptoms of COVID-19 is expected to underestimate the true population exposure to the virus."
Here, the Lancet writers are trying to argue that the sample wasn't that biased, and therefore the Science paper was right, and therefore the current infections are due to "variants".
It's a very weird and convoluted argument. Comparison to demographic variables is irrelevant, and the second sentence doesn't address the actual concern with the Science paper (i.e. testing in Brazil was rare at the time of the study, so people with Covid sought out the study). Regardless, I think it's a red herring. It doesn't matter if the sample was biased or not -- you can look at the data as collected, and see that the upward adjustments were so aggressive that the conclusion of the Science paper is likely to be wrong.
The only thing we can learn from Manaus is that waiting for herd immunity is a very bad idea.
tinus_hn(3)
> Does he hear himself? You can't really liken wild guesses that lead to complacency/death as hiding the truth. It sounds like this guy should really stick to surgery.
It’s not a “wild guess.” There is data to support it. So what you’re really saying is that scientists should avoid discussing possible interpretations of the data for fear of what conclusions the public might draw. That’s not how science works and it isn’t a good way to build public trust in the process.
It’s not a “wild guess.” There is data to support it. So what you’re really saying is that scientists should avoid discussing possible interpretations of the data for fear of what conclusions the public might draw. That’s not how science works and it isn’t a good way to build public trust in the process.
The argument: In large part because natural immunity from prior infection is far more common than can be measured by testing. Testing has been capturing only from 10% to 25% of infections, depending on when during the pandemic someone got the virus. Applying a time-weighted case capture average of 1 in 6.5 to the cumulative 28 million confirmed cases would mean about 55% of Americans have natural immunity.
That's far higher than what the CDC measures. They have actual data on whether people show antibodies.[1] Their main data source is from random blood samples processed by commercial labs where the samples were taken for some other purpose. The trouble is, the blood lab data runs way behind; the latest data is about 60 days old. But that's what to watch. It's annoying that so little current data is available on this. Anyway, as of late December, those numbers are from 3% (Hawaii) to 23% (North Dakota).
Blood samples are also taken from blood donations. If you donate blood, you get an COVID-19 antibody test done on it, and the Red Cross will tell you the results. (Yes, there's an app for that.) Those provide a crosscheck. People who have blood drawn for medical purposes tend to be sicker than average, and blood donors tend to be less sick than average. So one would expect the value for a whole population to be somewhere above the blood donor rate and below the medical sample rate.
Kansas is seeing 22% of blood donors showing antibodies, as of mid-January. Note that this includes people who have been vaccinated, which, for Kansas, is about 8%. That compares to 12% showing antibodies in lab samples as of mid-December, which was pre-vaccine. I haven't been able to find data from other states. Anyone finding that?
There are a number of approved blood-based antibody tests, and they have sensitivity levels from 89% to 99%. So test error isn't a big contributor to error.
So, while the measured values are moving up, nothing as high as 55% is showing up in the actual data yet. More current data would be a big help. Perhaps the data collection and publication will be improved under the new administration. Anyway, looking at the actuals is more useful than trying to project this from a measurement of something else.
[1] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/?CDC_AA_refVal=http...
[2] https://www.ctnewsonline.com/news/article_a97ef828-6122-11eb...
That's far higher than what the CDC measures. They have actual data on whether people show antibodies.[1] Their main data source is from random blood samples processed by commercial labs where the samples were taken for some other purpose. The trouble is, the blood lab data runs way behind; the latest data is about 60 days old. But that's what to watch. It's annoying that so little current data is available on this. Anyway, as of late December, those numbers are from 3% (Hawaii) to 23% (North Dakota).
Blood samples are also taken from blood donations. If you donate blood, you get an COVID-19 antibody test done on it, and the Red Cross will tell you the results. (Yes, there's an app for that.) Those provide a crosscheck. People who have blood drawn for medical purposes tend to be sicker than average, and blood donors tend to be less sick than average. So one would expect the value for a whole population to be somewhere above the blood donor rate and below the medical sample rate.
Kansas is seeing 22% of blood donors showing antibodies, as of mid-January. Note that this includes people who have been vaccinated, which, for Kansas, is about 8%. That compares to 12% showing antibodies in lab samples as of mid-December, which was pre-vaccine. I haven't been able to find data from other states. Anyone finding that?
There are a number of approved blood-based antibody tests, and they have sensitivity levels from 89% to 99%. So test error isn't a big contributor to error.
So, while the measured values are moving up, nothing as high as 55% is showing up in the actual data yet. More current data would be a big help. Perhaps the data collection and publication will be improved under the new administration. Anyway, looking at the actuals is more useful than trying to project this from a measurement of something else.
[1] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/?CDC_AA_refVal=http...
[2] https://www.ctnewsonline.com/news/article_a97ef828-6122-11eb...
He also uses a fairly low estimate of IFR:
> Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. would also suggest much broader immunity than recognized. About 1 in 600 Americans has died of Covid-19, which translates to a population fatality rate of about 0.15%. The Covid-19 infection fatality rate is about 0.23%. These numbers indicate that roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population has had the infection.
I usually see numbers like 0.5-0.6% bandied around for the US, which changes the deaths-IFR estimate to 1/4-1/3 of the country having been infected, rather than 2/3.
> Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. would also suggest much broader immunity than recognized. About 1 in 600 Americans has died of Covid-19, which translates to a population fatality rate of about 0.15%. The Covid-19 infection fatality rate is about 0.23%. These numbers indicate that roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population has had the infection.
I usually see numbers like 0.5-0.6% bandied around for the US, which changes the deaths-IFR estimate to 1/4-1/3 of the country having been infected, rather than 2/3.
Even if he is correct about the IFR the conclusion he draws is completely wrong.
The 0.23 IFR would only be the current IFR. In the real world, the vast majority of the 0.15 % of the population died when the IFR was significantly higher, either due to the initial lack of understanding about the virus such as during the beginning of the pandemic, or due to the fact that even after we had a better understanding the majority of deaths across the country happened under situations where the IFR was higher due to hospitals being overloaded.
The 0.23 IFR would only be the current IFR. In the real world, the vast majority of the 0.15 % of the population died when the IFR was significantly higher, either due to the initial lack of understanding about the virus such as during the beginning of the pandemic, or due to the fact that even after we had a better understanding the majority of deaths across the country happened under situations where the IFR was higher due to hospitals being overloaded.
Also, even if we assume the good doctor is correct about the IFR, any time you try to posit the infection is much more wide-spread than experts believe, to get a lower iFR, you're also implicitly saying that you think the disease is much more virulent, which means the "herd immunity" thresholds are higher.
Why are you talking about antibodies? The author was specifically talking about T-cells which are more prevalent.
I for one love it when mouthy oncologists get picked to talk about epedemiology in the Journal.
Next week, tune in for a sculptor's hot take on the Mars lander.
Next week, tune in for a sculptor's hot take on the Mars lander.
He cites Manaus as a positive example of the power of heard immunity, not only is he not an expert he doesn't seem to actually read the news.
s/We'll have/I really really want/
These sadly arent the exclusive purvey of the journal. plenty of other dog-trainers and nightly consumer-news shows often feature what amounts to a thinly-veiled quarantine tantrum masquerading as insightful critique.
These sadly arent the exclusive purvey of the journal. plenty of other dog-trainers and nightly consumer-news shows often feature what amounts to a thinly-veiled quarantine tantrum masquerading as insightful critique.
News firms in USA optimize for audience size. Most Americans would rather listen to Pollyanna bullshit than uncomfortable truth. So, the news firms mostly publish wishful thinking. According to some of these shallow beings, we were supposed to have "herd immunity" by last April. Here in the real world, it's still not clear that this concept is even possible with the covid virus.
What about the old adage of "fear sells"? Do doomsday predictions no longer generate clicks?
We've been subject to the fear-cannon for two decades. They had to sell many disastrous wars, and after all brown people are scary. A fatigue has set in. At this point they've turned the knob so far they're worried they may have broken it. They hype up tanker explosions and everybody starts googling "Tonkin Gulf". Significant numbers of Americans actually remember dumb advice they got from leading health officials an entire year ago. Now that we've had a 9/11 every day for a year, a new 9/11 won't land the same. If e.g. Xinjiang and Hong Kong were both leveled by atomic bombs tomorrow, the average American would change the channel. Popular news just doesn't have the effect it used to have; it's back to the drawing board for the media firms and their owners.
Let's not forget the well documented Iraqi WMD debacle.
>it's back to the drawing board for the media firms and their owners.
Enter social media. All of your "friends" believe in precepts x, y and z. It is popular. Don't be skeptical. That's fringe. Do you need a fact check headline?
It isn't difficult to imagine how the WMD story would be sold today.
>it's back to the drawing board for the media firms and their owners.
Enter social media. All of your "friends" believe in precepts x, y and z. It is popular. Don't be skeptical. That's fringe. Do you need a fact check headline?
It isn't difficult to imagine how the WMD story would be sold today.
Apologies for the late reply. You're right about what they've attempted and will continue to attempt, of course. There is reason for hope, however. They had decades of experience manufacturing consent via print and broadcast media, and they got pretty good at it. Clearly they want to wield social media as deftly (see all the wishful thinking about the obviously-bullshit-from-day-one "Russiagate" theory). I don't think they have that skill yet, however. The current thinking is that they'll get it if they just deplatform the right people (and, it seems, the right platforms). That's a dead end; it runs counter to the way that social media works. Rather than swimming upstream, eventually they might develop effective mass communication methods via social media. I don't know what form those will take... maybe trolling-at-scale? They don't have it yet, though.
Another thing about "fear sells"... some fears are more comfortable than others. That's why it has taken so much work to get a tiny minority of Americans worked up about global warming, but they've easily stoked a series of stupid wars. It's comfortable to fear brown people, but it is less comfortable to fear things that seem fundamental to our own lives like the current form of our economy.
Another thing about "fear sells"... some fears are more comfortable than others. That's why it has taken so much work to get a tiny minority of Americans worked up about global warming, but they've easily stoked a series of stupid wars. It's comfortable to fear brown people, but it is less comfortable to fear things that seem fundamental to our own lives like the current form of our economy.
I agree that "fear sells". Usually there is a "them" to be afraid of. Not sure the media has figured out who we're supposed to be afraid of in this pandemic.
The unmasked? Those with differing opinions on the pandemic? Fellow shoppers? People outside your immeadiate family circle? Consumers of non-essential services?
At this point the divisions have been potentially driven to a point where each individual is atomized. Of course that it is the extreme case, but you needn't look far if you are looking to personify the target of the fear campaign.
At this point the divisions have been potentially driven to a point where each individual is atomized. Of course that it is the extreme case, but you needn't look far if you are looking to personify the target of the fear campaign.
the media wants you to fear, and even hate, those who's information source is not the same as yours. In other words, anyone getting information from a competitor.
Yet another useless piece of Op-Ed trash that people are tricked into reading because it's in a big name publication.
Otherwise respectable news outlets really need to get rid of their dead weight opinion sections, which only serve to damage the credibility of the news divisions. These pundits are a dime a dozen and their unfounded speculation (or at times outright misinformation) is no better than the typical junk floating around medium and substack.
Otherwise respectable news outlets really need to get rid of their dead weight opinion sections, which only serve to damage the credibility of the news divisions. These pundits are a dime a dozen and their unfounded speculation (or at times outright misinformation) is no better than the typical junk floating around medium and substack.
It's prefaced by Opinion, so I am assuming it's not really science-based :p
This is textbook ad hominem, and I think is against HN guidelines.
The comment above is a little mean, but I don't think it's ad hominem to note the author's lack of specific qualification in epidemiology or infectious disease.
When I am a non-expert in a complicated subject, I want the advice of experts. When I go to my general practitioner, I want to know they have a certificate that says they went to medical school. When I need open-heart surgery, I want to know the doctor is a cardiothoracic surgeon.
When I read a doctor's take on coronavirus in the WSJ, it would be a plus if they were an expert in infectious disease or epidemiology. It's kind of sad that the nation's 2nd highest circulation paper can't find someone with more expertise in this area.
Amplifying non-expert advice is dangerous, just like having an orthodontist try to do heart surgery is dangerous. C.f. Scott Atlas, of course.
When I am a non-expert in a complicated subject, I want the advice of experts. When I go to my general practitioner, I want to know they have a certificate that says they went to medical school. When I need open-heart surgery, I want to know the doctor is a cardiothoracic surgeon.
When I read a doctor's take on coronavirus in the WSJ, it would be a plus if they were an expert in infectious disease or epidemiology. It's kind of sad that the nation's 2nd highest circulation paper can't find someone with more expertise in this area.
Amplifying non-expert advice is dangerous, just like having an orthodontist try to do heart surgery is dangerous. C.f. Scott Atlas, of course.
> I don't think it's ad hominem to note the author's lack of specific qualification in epidemiology or infectious disease
If the purpose of such a note is to attack the validity of the author's position, this is what ad hominem means.
If the purpose of such a note is to attack the validity of the author's position, this is what ad hominem means.
The only reason we're discussing this author's opinion is because they appear in a prestigious newspaper. The world is full of opinions, and we choose some to discuss based on heuristics.
The appearance of this article on HN is effectively an argument from authority -- the newspaper's, not the author's. Without that, we wouldn't even be talking about it. Undercutting their arguments is time consuming, but pointing out that they don't have the background to be making their claims -- and that they're appearing on an editorial page famous for putting politics over facts -- is sufficient for many people to say, "Let's stop considering this and go talk about something else."
Those who want to continue the argument may, of course. But meeting an argument from authority with the exact opposite argument (truthful, but ad hominem) is a convenient shortcut for those who don't want to get sucked into that.
The appearance of this article on HN is effectively an argument from authority -- the newspaper's, not the author's. Without that, we wouldn't even be talking about it. Undercutting their arguments is time consuming, but pointing out that they don't have the background to be making their claims -- and that they're appearing on an editorial page famous for putting politics over facts -- is sufficient for many people to say, "Let's stop considering this and go talk about something else."
Those who want to continue the argument may, of course. But meeting an argument from authority with the exact opposite argument (truthful, but ad hominem) is a convenient shortcut for those who don't want to get sucked into that.
In pure deductive logic, sure. But nobody operates like that. Bayesian reasoning allows us to decide to listen to one group of people and ignore another based on our priors even if it isn’t purely valid deductive logic.
Please tell me which epidemiologist "expert" has any expertise in public policy, mental health, business, cancer research, childhood education, restaurant ownership, haircare, finance, law, etc.
Because these lockdowns affect all of those things. Shouldn't "experts" in those fields have a voice in all this too?
Why is the only expert that is allowed to have an opinion worthy of being listened to the esteemed epidemiologist "expert"? Public health is more than the eradication of a specific form of disease, you know. Perhaps getting input from other experts might promote a more balanced take on how to deal with this pandemic.
And hell... plenty of the "expert" doomsday figures aren't epidemiologists at all and people have no problem reposting their announcements. For example if Andy Slavitt of Eric Feigl-Ding wrote an opinion piece on how we should have a ultra-hard lockdown for 6 months, nobody would call into question their expertise at all despite neither of them knowing anything about epidemiology or infectious disease.
By the way, I find it curios that absolutely none of the "experts" we are told to exclusively listen to have lost a single paycheck the entire 11 months this has been going on. Funny, that. Wonder what they would recommend if they stopped getting paid and had to spend two months on hold with unemployment trying to get a human to talk to.
Because these lockdowns affect all of those things. Shouldn't "experts" in those fields have a voice in all this too?
Why is the only expert that is allowed to have an opinion worthy of being listened to the esteemed epidemiologist "expert"? Public health is more than the eradication of a specific form of disease, you know. Perhaps getting input from other experts might promote a more balanced take on how to deal with this pandemic.
And hell... plenty of the "expert" doomsday figures aren't epidemiologists at all and people have no problem reposting their announcements. For example if Andy Slavitt of Eric Feigl-Ding wrote an opinion piece on how we should have a ultra-hard lockdown for 6 months, nobody would call into question their expertise at all despite neither of them knowing anything about epidemiology or infectious disease.
By the way, I find it curios that absolutely none of the "experts" we are told to exclusively listen to have lost a single paycheck the entire 11 months this has been going on. Funny, that. Wonder what they would recommend if they stopped getting paid and had to spend two months on hold with unemployment trying to get a human to talk to.
Pointing out that someone is not an expert at something is not an ad hominem.
Arguing against someone's position by simply stating (truthfully or not) that they are not an expert is textbook ad hominem.
"He wants you to believe that green is the best color of M & M, but his business went bankrupt," is an ad hominem argument.
"He trains parakeets, so I don't find him a credible source of dog behavior" is not.
"He trains parakeets, so I don't find him a credible source of dog behavior" is not.
"He trains parakeets, so you should not believe his position that the dog salivates because the bell rings" is.
The trouble with your example is that it conflates common knowledge and expert opinion.
No one would question a parakeet trainer now if he claimed dogs respond to Pavlovian conditioning, because it is common knowledge that dogs respond to this type of conditioning.
However, if Pavlov had been a parakeet trainer and simply asserted dogs respond to Pavlovian conditioning rather than discovering and researching it, it would not have been an ad hominem argument to state he doesn't know what he's talking about... because he didn't until he studied and researched it.
No one would question a parakeet trainer now if he claimed dogs respond to Pavlovian conditioning, because it is common knowledge that dogs respond to this type of conditioning.
However, if Pavlov had been a parakeet trainer and simply asserted dogs respond to Pavlovian conditioning rather than discovering and researching it, it would not have been an ad hominem argument to state he doesn't know what he's talking about... because he didn't until he studied and researched it.
Arguing against their position by saying that they kick puppies is textbook ad hominem. Saying that they are not an expert isn't a strong argument, but it is a valid criticism.
It isn't the same as invalidating the argument. It doesn't approach the substance of what was presented. There is no substance to the objection.
Assertion: "That apple will fall on your head"
Appeal to authority: "You're not a physicist! Show me your PHD."
Assertion: "That apple will fall on your head"
Appeal to authority: "You're not a physicist! Show me your PHD."
In the situation where the argument being put forward relies on the explicitly or implicitly stated expertise of the orator - such as an article which says "Take heed of my opinion of the important medical factors here, for I am a doctor" - contending that said orator doesn't have that expertise is entirely valid, and not ad hominem. Ad hominem is such when the attack on the orator is orthogonal to their argument.
[deleted]
Come on. Evaluating the merit of a source is critical thinking 101.
As, and “X is not an expert in Y” is a valid response to an argument resting on X’s authority, but not otherwise a counterargument.
Perhaps it more closely resembles an appeal to authority or appeal to accomplishment.
This isn't an appeal to authority though. That would be saying, "I'm right because I'm the expert." This is saying, "I don't trust you because you're not an expert." That's not a logical fallacy.
Even experts in adjacent or overlapping fields are suspect. I'm a flight instructor. I teach in airplanes. Would you believe what I have to say about helicopters? You shouldn't. I don't know jack about them.
Even experts in adjacent or overlapping fields are suspect. I'm a flight instructor. I teach in airplanes. Would you believe what I have to say about helicopters? You shouldn't. I don't know jack about them.
If you told me I had low tire pressure I wouldn't ask if you're a mechanic. I would look at the tire myself. If I was unable to use a pressure gauge due to a lack of my own expertise, I still wouldn't be in a position to question your observation about the tire based upon your credentials alone. The best counter argument I could mount would be, "It looks full to me" or "I checked the pressure this morning". Dismissing your observation because you are a flight instructor, not a mechanic is exactly what an appeal to authority is.
He’s either correct about your tire pressure or he’s not. You’re right about that part. That’s as far as the purely logical bit can go—then you get to economics: Should you spend the time and energy to give his claim credence? Your example is poor because tire pressure is an expertise the average person you’re likely to come into contact with likely possesses. This is not so of, say, the epidemiological issue in question.
If you picked up a member of an Amazonian tribe who had never seen a car before, are you going to worry about the tire if he claims the tire pressure is low? Well, sure, it’s easy enough to check. But what if it was $500 to check? No. I don’t think you would.
If you picked up a member of an Amazonian tribe who had never seen a car before, are you going to worry about the tire if he claims the tire pressure is low? Well, sure, it’s easy enough to check. But what if it was $500 to check? No. I don’t think you would.
Yes, I attempted to cover that eventuality in my example. Let's say I am not qualified to examine the tire myself and someone who's ability I also doubted made an observation.
Here's what I wouldn't do: prejudicially dismiss the tribesman's opinion, citing his lack of authority on the topic.
Even if we accept the premises of an appeal to authority, it would follow that one would have to also be an authority on the topic before he could determine the authoritativeness of another speaker. How can you evaluate the authority of a speaker, if you yourself are not an 'authority' on the topic?
Even if you are an authority, does this status render you infallible?
No, I'm afraid the entire premise is ridiculous.
Here's what I wouldn't do: prejudicially dismiss the tribesman's opinion, citing his lack of authority on the topic.
Even if we accept the premises of an appeal to authority, it would follow that one would have to also be an authority on the topic before he could determine the authoritativeness of another speaker. How can you evaluate the authority of a speaker, if you yourself are not an 'authority' on the topic?
Even if you are an authority, does this status render you infallible?
No, I'm afraid the entire premise is ridiculous.
> Here's what I wouldn't do: prejudicially dismiss the tribesman's opinion, citing his lack of authority on the topic.
Even if you wouldn't in this particular case, you can't possibly function in the world if you eschew questions of trust completely. You'd basically have to prove everything yourself.
> Even if we accept the premises of an appeal to authority...
An appeal to authority is claiming something is true because an authority said it. The inverse of that would be that something is untrue because no authority said it. No one is claiming that to be the case and even if they were, that wouldn't make it an appeal to authority. In any case, this is a question of credibility (i.e., trust).
> ...it would follow that one would have to also be an authority on the topic before he could determine the authoritativeness of another speaker.
This doesn't follow at all. I am not an expert on tires, but I can understand that someone who has never even seen a tire is also not an expert on tires.
> Even if you are an authority, does this status render you infallible?
No. Of course not. But it does make you a more credible source of information in your field of expertise.
Even if you wouldn't in this particular case, you can't possibly function in the world if you eschew questions of trust completely. You'd basically have to prove everything yourself.
> Even if we accept the premises of an appeal to authority...
An appeal to authority is claiming something is true because an authority said it. The inverse of that would be that something is untrue because no authority said it. No one is claiming that to be the case and even if they were, that wouldn't make it an appeal to authority. In any case, this is a question of credibility (i.e., trust).
> ...it would follow that one would have to also be an authority on the topic before he could determine the authoritativeness of another speaker.
This doesn't follow at all. I am not an expert on tires, but I can understand that someone who has never even seen a tire is also not an expert on tires.
> Even if you are an authority, does this status render you infallible?
No. Of course not. But it does make you a more credible source of information in your field of expertise.
There's a difference between dismissing someone's objection solely for lack of credentials (an appeal to authority) and valuing the opinion of an expert.
The former is absolute, the latter allows for other factors of consideration.
The former is absolute, the latter allows for other factors of consideration.
What counter-argument are you referring to? I only see a comment that points out the author isn't an epidemiologist, which seems relevant to an epidemiological prediction.
This is a good example of why "ad hominem" is one of the worst arguments you can try to use against something.
In actual human discussion, pointing out that someone is making claims about something they don't know anything about is the very basis of common sense. Trying to make this out to be a logical fallacy only shows how useless that label is.
In actual human discussion, pointing out that someone is making claims about something they don't know anything about is the very basis of common sense. Trying to make this out to be a logical fallacy only shows how useless that label is.
The problem becomes how you quantify your opponent's knowledge from a subjective position.
How can you prove that they don't know what they are talking about without disputing the points they have made?
You must attack the argument, not the person.
How can you prove that they don't know what they are talking about without disputing the points they have made?
You must attack the argument, not the person.
No, you really don't. This isn't a mathematical proof. This isn't a formal debate. This is regular, common-sense discussion.
Pointing out that a guy who is not an expert in a field is making claims that go against the actual experts in that field is a perfectly reasonable argument, and ignoring it is intentionally blinding yourself.
Pointing out that a guy who is not an expert in a field is making claims that go against the actual experts in that field is a perfectly reasonable argument, and ignoring it is intentionally blinding yourself.
[deleted]
From the Wikipedia article on ad hominem arguments:
"Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious." [Emphasis added]
In particular, pointing out that someone is speaking outside of their area of expertise is a logically valid ad hominem argument.
"Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious." [Emphasis added]
In particular, pointing out that someone is speaking outside of their area of expertise is a logically valid ad hominem argument.
It does not disprove the claim, but it does put it in perspective, and warn that you shouldn't take the claim with fully understanding it, and, preferably finding reputable analysis or rebuttals.
It's not an informative comment criticizing the author's credentials. It a drive-by insult.
[deleted]
I really want to see positive news, and the vaccination rollout (despite how uneven it is) is definitely positive.
But the focus on herd immunity, if conflated with immunity after infection, is misleading:
Look at what's happening in Manaus:
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n394
The news there are definitely sobering :(
Unfortunately, the multiplication of strains of covid19 was inevitable, due to the decision of multiple countries to let the disease spread almost unchecked through its population :/
But the focus on herd immunity, if conflated with immunity after infection, is misleading:
Look at what's happening in Manaus:
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n394
The news there are definitely sobering :(
Unfortunately, the multiplication of strains of covid19 was inevitable, due to the decision of multiple countries to let the disease spread almost unchecked through its population :/
AFAICS this isn’t talked about enough! If lockdowns were taken seriously from the start, it would had prevented going wild and risking new strains. But here we are
>If lockdowns were taken seriously from the start, it would had prevented going wild and risking new strains.
I don't think a strategy that needs every country on earth to cooperate this tightly ever had a chance to work.
Most countries aren't the first world, most countries don't have the resources to test and quarantine properly, most countries can't afford lockdowns.
On top of that a lot of countries have much worse disease to deal with, Malaria for example, for them this is just one of many, and not such a terrible one.
There will be mutations, this will come back a few times, maybe it becomes milder on its own, but thinking you can keep it from mutating is Quixotic.
I don't think a strategy that needs every country on earth to cooperate this tightly ever had a chance to work.
Most countries aren't the first world, most countries don't have the resources to test and quarantine properly, most countries can't afford lockdowns.
On top of that a lot of countries have much worse disease to deal with, Malaria for example, for them this is just one of many, and not such a terrible one.
There will be mutations, this will come back a few times, maybe it becomes milder on its own, but thinking you can keep it from mutating is Quixotic.
The long distance travel which spreads a pandemic so fast now is predominantly a First World thing. We could and should have shut that down.
A month after we knew we were in deep trouble it was still perfectly normal to decide hey this is boring I'll go on vacation to somewhere with nowhere near the capacity needed to handle COVID-19. Oh, I have a little cough, never mind if I feel sick I'll just fly home after I'm done infecting these people.
Remember this is SARS-CoV-2. Where's the mutations and endless new strains of SARS-CoV-1? There aren't any, it was eliminated in humans.
So yes it is now sadly likely we're stuck with this, but we ought to be clear it's our fault in countries that didn't do even one tenth of what they should to prevent it.
A month after we knew we were in deep trouble it was still perfectly normal to decide hey this is boring I'll go on vacation to somewhere with nowhere near the capacity needed to handle COVID-19. Oh, I have a little cough, never mind if I feel sick I'll just fly home after I'm done infecting these people.
Remember this is SARS-CoV-2. Where's the mutations and endless new strains of SARS-CoV-1? There aren't any, it was eliminated in humans.
So yes it is now sadly likely we're stuck with this, but we ought to be clear it's our fault in countries that didn't do even one tenth of what they should to prevent it.
>Remember this is SARS-CoV-2. Where's the mutations and endless new strains of SARS-CoV-1? There aren't any, it was eliminated in humans.
I think this is only because it was contained in China before it reached the world. They had an excellent pandemic response and quashed it before it reached other countries.
This time around it had spread around the world before we even heard about it. It was completely predictable containment efforts would be futile.
I think this is only because it was contained in China before it reached the world. They had an excellent pandemic response and quashed it before it reached other countries.
This time around it had spread around the world before we even heard about it. It was completely predictable containment efforts would be futile.
sars definitely reached other countries outside of china..
> I think this is only because it was contained in China before it reached the world
Is this true? According to the CDC, there were SARS cases reported in Europe and the Americas prior to containment in China. Why was it different this time around?
Is this true? According to the CDC, there were SARS cases reported in Europe and the Americas prior to containment in China. Why was it different this time around?
SARS was more lethal and people actually took public health measures seriously.
Additionally, SARS v1 was not contagious until there were visible symptoms - a huge difference from COVID/SARS v2.
I wouldn't put too much confidence in that. SARS wasn't known to be contagious presymptomatically, but neither was COVID-19 for many months. Levels of presymptomatic transmission similar to COVID-19 are entirely consistent with the evidence we have from SARS.
That seems unlikely, if for no other reason than the way COVID has spread. Do you have any data?
All the data I've seen on SARs and the mechanisms deployed to control it indicate infectivity at or only very, very shortly before clear symptoms or they would not have been able to control it.
COVID is quite clearly infectious before visible symptoms of any kind, and even when visible many times symptoms are pretty mild - where SARs was not - and this matches it's observed spread and difficulty in controlling it.
All the data I've seen on SARs and the mechanisms deployed to control it indicate infectivity at or only very, very shortly before clear symptoms or they would not have been able to control it.
COVID is quite clearly infectious before visible symptoms of any kind, and even when visible many times symptoms are pretty mild - where SARs was not - and this matches it's observed spread and difficulty in controlling it.
> Most countries aren't the first world, most countries don't have the resources to test and quarantine properly, most countries can't afford lockdowns.
The United States meets all these criteria, and has the highest number of cases and deaths in the world. (And near the top in per-capita measures, too.)
The United States meets all these criteria, and has the highest number of cases and deaths in the world. (And near the top in per-capita measures, too.)
Of course a country with the resources to test properly has the highest number of cases and deaths in the world, because if you can't test properly you can't detect Covid-19 cases and deaths. I know the American press has fed its citizens a load of nonsense about this for nakedly partisan reasons, just like it has with every other part of the Covid-19 crisis, and it's getting tiring...
That of course is another thing to mention.
Kind of like the EU countries talking badly about England after they discovered a more infectious mutation. In Germany at the time they didn't even sequence enough viruses to detect mutations before they're widespread.
Kind of like the EU countries talking badly about England after they discovered a more infectious mutation. In Germany at the time they didn't even sequence enough viruses to detect mutations before they're widespread.
I was listing the necessary, not the sufficient criteria.
The United States could but it doesn't because the political system is too federalized for a centralized response.
The United States could but it doesn't because the political system is too federalized for a centralized response.
> I don't think a strategy that needs every country on earth to cooperate this tightly ever had a chance to work.
It doesn't need that though.
It needs countries to close the borders tightly except to countries that do cooperate, as many Asian countries have successfully done.
It doesn't need that though.
It needs countries to close the borders tightly except to countries that do cooperate, as many Asian countries have successfully done.
If your goal is to stop mutations from happening, yes, you need everyone in the world to go on full lockdown for 4 weeks. And then test everybody and quarantine until the disease is gone.
The situation right now is that you have plenty of breeding grounds for new mutations, and it only needs some minor crossing of borders for these to get through.
I would also say it's infeasible for non-island nations that need to trade with other countries to completely lock the borders.
The situation right now is that you have plenty of breeding grounds for new mutations, and it only needs some minor crossing of borders for these to get through.
I would also say it's infeasible for non-island nations that need to trade with other countries to completely lock the borders.
Lockdowns were never going to work, and any strategy that relied on them was doomed to fail.
A strategy that involves convincing every country, and every little province, to destroy their local economies, all at the same time. I can’t believe it didn’t work! Maybe if we just keep trying.
A strategy that involves convincing every country, and every little province, to destroy their local economies, all at the same time. I can’t believe it didn’t work! Maybe if we just keep trying.
Lockdowns have been extremely successful in a great many countries.
Some examples include:
* China bringing their initial outbreak down to near-zero
* Italy arresting their early surge that overwhelmed health systems
* New Zealand bringing their infection rate low enough to essentially return to normal life (apart from international travel)
* The UK stopping a dramatic winter uptick involving the B 1.7.1 variant from overwhelming the NHS
In what way have they not worked?
Some examples include:
* China bringing their initial outbreak down to near-zero
* Italy arresting their early surge that overwhelmed health systems
* New Zealand bringing their infection rate low enough to essentially return to normal life (apart from international travel)
* The UK stopping a dramatic winter uptick involving the B 1.7.1 variant from overwhelming the NHS
In what way have they not worked?
This whole comment chain is about global covid. Any course of action that relies upon global cooperation is pointless. We can't even get country wide cooperation in the United States. If we try to stop the global spread of covid with lockdowns, we'll all die of old age in lockdown.
So two islands, an authoritarian communist government, and Italy have seen success with lockdowns?
Good for Italy!
Good for Italy!
Nothing is going to work any better than lockdowns, though. The reason the strategy wasn't ever going to work is because the fear level wasn't high enough. Bump up the death rate so people who can't see past their own nose see some death, and it'll work.
Sadly, coronaviruses definitely have the potential to deliver on that. Now that so many people have become infected because lockdowns weren't taken seriously, and because poor and working people weren't protected or provided for, we're going to have to deal with every possible mutation that could be imagined. Scary situation when MERS was a thing.
The idea that the world can't wait at a fairly comfortable sustenance level for any period of time is one that might be written on our species' tombstone.
Sadly, coronaviruses definitely have the potential to deliver on that. Now that so many people have become infected because lockdowns weren't taken seriously, and because poor and working people weren't protected or provided for, we're going to have to deal with every possible mutation that could be imagined. Scary situation when MERS was a thing.
The idea that the world can't wait at a fairly comfortable sustenance level for any period of time is one that might be written on our species' tombstone.
>Nothing is going to work any better than lockdowns, though.
They haven't worked, and they can't work. There are many third world countries that don't have internet access or the equivalent to the CDC. Global cooperation is just absolutely not going to happen. We can't even agree city to city in the US, much less state to state.
The way out of a global pandemic is the same it always has been. Vaccination. Attempting to control individual behavior on a global scale is a fools errand.
They haven't worked, and they can't work. There are many third world countries that don't have internet access or the equivalent to the CDC. Global cooperation is just absolutely not going to happen. We can't even agree city to city in the US, much less state to state.
The way out of a global pandemic is the same it always has been. Vaccination. Attempting to control individual behavior on a global scale is a fools errand.
> The reason the strategy wasn't ever going to work is because the fear level wasn't high enough
The average American 35 year old thinks if they catch covid they have a >10% chance of dying. This is off by almost 1000x.
If you drove that error down to 0 so people knew exactly what there risks were if they got covid (i.e. for most healthy adults and children, covid is a complete non-event)... I don't think the general public would tolerate any of these NPI's at all.
The fact that people can overestimate their covid risks by almost 1000x has destroyed our ability to have rational discussions about kids in school, who should be prioritized for vaccination, and how we should return to actual normal life.
Shoveling nonstop boatloads of absolute fear into peoples head has been one of the most morally bankrupt things the media and public health "experts" have done over the course of the pandemic. Society is going to spend years cleaning up the mental health train-wreck these people have caused.
Source for the figures. Take a look. It blows me away how wrong peoples risk perceptions are of covid. https://covid19pulse.usc.edu/
The average American 35 year old thinks if they catch covid they have a >10% chance of dying. This is off by almost 1000x.
If you drove that error down to 0 so people knew exactly what there risks were if they got covid (i.e. for most healthy adults and children, covid is a complete non-event)... I don't think the general public would tolerate any of these NPI's at all.
The fact that people can overestimate their covid risks by almost 1000x has destroyed our ability to have rational discussions about kids in school, who should be prioritized for vaccination, and how we should return to actual normal life.
Shoveling nonstop boatloads of absolute fear into peoples head has been one of the most morally bankrupt things the media and public health "experts" have done over the course of the pandemic. Society is going to spend years cleaning up the mental health train-wreck these people have caused.
Source for the figures. Take a look. It blows me away how wrong peoples risk perceptions are of covid. https://covid19pulse.usc.edu/
I don't know anyone who over-estimated their chances of dying, took precautions, and then regretted over-estimating, but I bet that close to 100% of the people who under-estimated their chances of dying regretted it on their death beds.
Personally, I am not afraid to admit I am scared of a virus that can be transmitted by asymptomatic people, incubates for two weeks, then can kill you, but hey, I guess that just makes me a scaredy-cat. I'm willing to live with that label.
Personally, I am not afraid to admit I am scared of a virus that can be transmitted by asymptomatic people, incubates for two weeks, then can kill you, but hey, I guess that just makes me a scaredy-cat. I'm willing to live with that label.
So are you the type I see blasting through red lights on your bicycle wearing a mask and no helmet? Are you the type of person I see who blindly steps out into a busy street to maintain "proper social distance" when somebody walks by you?
Because risks are everywhere. Overestimating your risks from covid by 1000x results in making some really, really poor risk tradeoffs.
People joke about dudes drinking bleach and stuff but that behavior was because they vastly overestimated their covid risks... so much so they completely disregarded the very real risks of... you know... drinking bleach.
Much more serious examples of bad risk tradeoffs are how many parents are handling their kids. Some of the stuff people are doing to their poor children is downright deplorable. For example keeping them completely isolated from outside contact. All of it is because their perceptions of covid risks are incredibly wrong.
The media and these "experts" have created a huge shadow pandemic of unchecked, irrational fear. Absolutely nobody seems to acknowledge it and we have to tackle it at some point in order to move past this. Unfortunately, it will require these experts to "tell the truth" about the risks of covid instead of hyping every outlier all the time.
Because risks are everywhere. Overestimating your risks from covid by 1000x results in making some really, really poor risk tradeoffs.
People joke about dudes drinking bleach and stuff but that behavior was because they vastly overestimated their covid risks... so much so they completely disregarded the very real risks of... you know... drinking bleach.
Much more serious examples of bad risk tradeoffs are how many parents are handling their kids. Some of the stuff people are doing to their poor children is downright deplorable. For example keeping them completely isolated from outside contact. All of it is because their perceptions of covid risks are incredibly wrong.
The media and these "experts" have created a huge shadow pandemic of unchecked, irrational fear. Absolutely nobody seems to acknowledge it and we have to tackle it at some point in order to move past this. Unfortunately, it will require these experts to "tell the truth" about the risks of covid instead of hyping every outlier all the time.
Nope, just a guy who sees on one hand a very small, but nonzero risk of dying of an easily preventable disease, and the tradeoff is... wait for it... wearing a mask over my face and avoiding being around people indoors. I know! Terrible! Such a dilemma! I really have to agonize about whether it's worth the enormous cost of wearing a little piece of cloth.
The idea that covid is somehow a preventable disease is one of the more malicious bits of propaganda that’s been floating around. Is the flu a preventable disease too?
>a virus that can be transmitted by asymptomatic people
I thought asymptomatic transmission wasn't really a thing. Is there updated data on this?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
Here's the best thing I've found for incubation period:
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/10/8/e039652.full.pd...
I thought asymptomatic transmission wasn't really a thing. Is there updated data on this?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
Here's the best thing I've found for incubation period:
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/10/8/e039652.full.pd...
They were always going to work, but only if they were used in their proper context: to knock down the size of the epidemic so that less intrusive, more efficient means of infection control can happen: universal, repeated testing; universal contact tracing; and rapid isolation of contacts.
The people who complain about lockdowns are also the people who refuse to do the alternative, and then claim "nothing works".
I am really tired of the "we tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" political party. Get out of the way and let people who are capable of handling things get to work.
The people who complain about lockdowns are also the people who refuse to do the alternative, and then claim "nothing works".
I am really tired of the "we tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" political party. Get out of the way and let people who are capable of handling things get to work.
Lockdowns do not destroy the economy. Anti-maskers destroy the economy, by decreasing the effectiveness of lockdowns, and making them a chronic rather than acute necessity.
The relationship between COVID and the local economy is highly country-dependent. For example, several Balkan countries’ economies are very dependent on their diasporas (and the occasional tourists) driving/flying back and spending loads of money earned in the West. This is why even now they have remained open to travelers and avoided hard lockdowns, even if COVID deaths might result.
And then there are countries where the economy is based on resource extraction. Only a relatively tiny amount of people is necessary to work the oil and gas industry, or whatever, and thinktanks have sometimes bluntly referred to all the remaining millions of people as "superfluous population". So, whether you let COVID spread or not has little overall effect on the economy.
And then there are countries where the economy is based on resource extraction. Only a relatively tiny amount of people is necessary to work the oil and gas industry, or whatever, and thinktanks have sometimes bluntly referred to all the remaining millions of people as "superfluous population". So, whether you let COVID spread or not has little overall effect on the economy.
I live in Alberta, Canada, which is heavily reliant on resource extraction -- namely, oil. With all the lockdowns (and people voluntarily staying at home), demand for oil has tanked.
If there weren't lockdowns (and people were travelling again), our economy would be doing much better.
[With all that said, and while I dearly missing socializing, it isn't obvious to me that removing the lockdowns would improve things; on the other hand, it isn't obvious to me that letting the disease run rampant would be worse than the mental and emotional toll the lockdowns are taking on people and the economy. So many poorly understood trade-offs.]
If there weren't lockdowns (and people were travelling again), our economy would be doing much better.
[With all that said, and while I dearly missing socializing, it isn't obvious to me that removing the lockdowns would improve things; on the other hand, it isn't obvious to me that letting the disease run rampant would be worse than the mental and emotional toll the lockdowns are taking on people and the economy. So many poorly understood trade-offs.]
> Manaus shows that pursuing herd immunity through natural infection is not a guarantee.
Not a guarantee of what? Are we suggesting that we have a virus here that, unlike every previous virus, we can only reach herd immunity for with a vaccine?
Not a guarantee of what? Are we suggesting that we have a virus here that, unlike every previous virus, we can only reach herd immunity for with a vaccine?
> Unlike every previous virus
Have we reached "herd immunity" for syphilis? Herpes? Was smallpox eradicated via "herd immunity" that wasn't reached via a vaccine? Polio?
It is extremely common for viruses to not be eradicated unless there is a vaccine. Even vaccines are not guaranteed to be enough, e.g. with most influenza strains, although flu vaccines have managed to keep the death toll low enough for us to move on with our lives.
Have we reached "herd immunity" for syphilis? Herpes? Was smallpox eradicated via "herd immunity" that wasn't reached via a vaccine? Polio?
It is extremely common for viruses to not be eradicated unless there is a vaccine. Even vaccines are not guaranteed to be enough, e.g. with most influenza strains, although flu vaccines have managed to keep the death toll low enough for us to move on with our lives.
> Have we reached "herd immunity" for syphilis?
Syphilis is a bacterial infection. You can get it more than once. There is no such thing as herd immunity.
> Herpes?
...is transmitted via intimate, direct contact. You don't get herpes by walking into a crowded room, and there's no way to be "immune" to herpes without also being a carrier. Herd immunity isn't a relevant concept.
> Was smallpox eradicated via "herd immunity" that wasn't reached via a vaccine?
Smallpox was eradicated by herd immunity that was achieved via a mixture of natural and vaccine-induced immunity. Initially, a large portion of the population was immune due to natural infection. Over time, vaccinations were targeted to local outbreaks.
> Polio?
We have not eradicated polio. In some (now 3) countries, polio is endemic, and outbreaks are self-regulated by herd immunity.
Herd immunity does not mean that a disease is eliminated. It means that the spread of the disease is naturally controlled.
Syphilis is a bacterial infection. You can get it more than once. There is no such thing as herd immunity.
> Herpes?
...is transmitted via intimate, direct contact. You don't get herpes by walking into a crowded room, and there's no way to be "immune" to herpes without also being a carrier. Herd immunity isn't a relevant concept.
> Was smallpox eradicated via "herd immunity" that wasn't reached via a vaccine?
Smallpox was eradicated by herd immunity that was achieved via a mixture of natural and vaccine-induced immunity. Initially, a large portion of the population was immune due to natural infection. Over time, vaccinations were targeted to local outbreaks.
> Polio?
We have not eradicated polio. In some (now 3) countries, polio is endemic, and outbreaks are self-regulated by herd immunity.
Herd immunity does not mean that a disease is eliminated. It means that the spread of the disease is naturally controlled.
> Syphilis is a bacterial infection
"Herd immunity" applies to bacterial infections as it does to viral. All it means is that the R-value is low enough that the disease doesn't spread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Theoretical_basi...
As an example, pertussis is a bacterial infection which most US communities have herd immunity to thanks to the pertussis vaccine.
> You can get it more than once.
There are also viral infections you can get more than once. In fact, the South African variant of COVID is likely possible to get even if you've had COVID before.
> Mixture of natural and vaccine-induced immunity.
Sure, just like nearly every virus that has been eliminated via vaccine. As, hopefully, COVID will be. Smallpox was not eradicated without a vaccine.
> We have not eradicated polio
The vast majority of the world has indeed eradicated polio via vaccination, as made clear by the fact that only three countries out of 195 still have a polio problem. The same is true for measles, rubella, and a variety of other diseases, none of which would have been eradicated from most populations without vaccines.
The OP's stance that COVID would be somehow unique amongst viruses or diseases if it needed a vaccine for eradication ignores the history of every disease for which we've mass-vaccinated against in the 20th century, as well as the vast majority of diseases that have not been and never will be eradicated by herd-immunity-reached-through-mass-infection.
"Herd immunity" applies to bacterial infections as it does to viral. All it means is that the R-value is low enough that the disease doesn't spread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Theoretical_basi...
As an example, pertussis is a bacterial infection which most US communities have herd immunity to thanks to the pertussis vaccine.
> You can get it more than once.
There are also viral infections you can get more than once. In fact, the South African variant of COVID is likely possible to get even if you've had COVID before.
> Mixture of natural and vaccine-induced immunity.
Sure, just like nearly every virus that has been eliminated via vaccine. As, hopefully, COVID will be. Smallpox was not eradicated without a vaccine.
> We have not eradicated polio
The vast majority of the world has indeed eradicated polio via vaccination, as made clear by the fact that only three countries out of 195 still have a polio problem. The same is true for measles, rubella, and a variety of other diseases, none of which would have been eradicated from most populations without vaccines.
The OP's stance that COVID would be somehow unique amongst viruses or diseases if it needed a vaccine for eradication ignores the history of every disease for which we've mass-vaccinated against in the 20th century, as well as the vast majority of diseases that have not been and never will be eradicated by herd-immunity-reached-through-mass-infection.
"Herd immunity" applies to bacterial infections as it does to viral.
It does not apply to Syphilis. Getting an infection today does not prevent me from getting one next month. Even if it did, it doesn't materially affect the rate at which other people get it from me...unless we are rutting like rabbits in some constant random orgy.
It does not apply to Syphilis. Getting an infection today does not prevent me from getting one next month. Even if it did, it doesn't materially affect the rate at which other people get it from me...unless we are rutting like rabbits in some constant random orgy.
> Herd immunity does not mean that a disease is eliminated. It means that the spread of the disease is naturally controlled.
Not necessarily "naturally".
Not necessarily "naturally".
I mean "naturally", in the sense that it is a process mediated by the immune system. Even a vaccine-induced immune response is natural.
But yes, my choice of words is confusing there. The point I am making is that herd immunity is not eradication. People (like the OP) confuse the two concepts.
You can have herd immunity in a population, and the pathogen will still circulate. Observing that a virus still infects people is not evidence that herd immunity to that virus has not been achieved.
But yes, my choice of words is confusing there. The point I am making is that herd immunity is not eradication. People (like the OP) confuse the two concepts.
You can have herd immunity in a population, and the pathogen will still circulate. Observing that a virus still infects people is not evidence that herd immunity to that virus has not been achieved.
I don't believe there is any named virus where we have reached herd immunity without a vaccine.
Herd immunity was defined by the theory that it would prevent the spread of measles. It only did so with any measurable effect after universal vaccination was introduced.
Herd immunity was defined by the theory that it would prevent the spread of measles. It only did so with any measurable effect after universal vaccination was introduced.
Zika is presumed to have receded due to natural herd immunity.
That's possible but isn't mentioned on its wikipedia article - mosquito control seems at least as relevant.
For what viruses have we reached meaningful herd immunity without vaccines?
Zika is one.
Flu, if you grant that different strains count.
Influenza? The one which kills thousands of people every year despite widespread vaccination?
Except for 2020 where it's not even going to reach 100.
https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html
https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html
Exactly: that’s not because we suddenly hit herd immunity globally but because isolation masks are effective ways to stop respiratory illnesses.
Why would you respond like this without accounting for the rest of my very short comment?
Because it shows that herd immunity is not a given. Influenza is not only not there but will never be due to the nature of the virus being unusually prone to mutating.
That doesn't address what I said.
There is an argument to be made that various strains are different viruses, and that we have herd immunity to some of them. It wouldn't make sense to invent an English name for each one, but that doesn't mean they should be treated as a single thing in all contexts.
And I even stated it as ambiguous depending on how you count strains, I'm not arguing that there is only one way to look at it!
There is an argument to be made that various strains are different viruses, and that we have herd immunity to some of them. It wouldn't make sense to invent an English name for each one, but that doesn't mean they should be treated as a single thing in all contexts.
And I even stated it as ambiguous depending on how you count strains, I'm not arguing that there is only one way to look at it!
Your comment seems to rest upon a claim that we do not have flu vaccines. In fact, we do, and about half of all US adults are vaccinated against the flu every year — and more than half of US children are vaccinated, since the flu is more dangerous to children than adults.
Do you have a specific strain of flu in mind when you claim that we have reached herd immunity "to various strains" without vaccination?
Do you have a specific strain of flu in mind when you claim that we have reached herd immunity "to various strains" without vaccination?
How about the 1918 influenza pandemic?
There's also lots of places that don't do much flu vaccination, they don't necessarily have the same strains in circulation forever.
There's also lots of places that don't do much flu vaccination, they don't necessarily have the same strains in circulation forever.
There's a lot we don't know about the 1918 influenza pandemic, since it was at the dawn of much of modern medical science. However, Wikipedia claims that "a 2007 analysis of medical journals from the period of the pandemic found that the viral infection was no more aggressive than previous influenza strains. Instead, malnourishment, overcrowded medical camps and hospitals, and poor hygiene, all exacerbated by the recent war, promoted bacterial superinfection. This superinfection killed most of the victims, typically after a somewhat prolonged death bed." [1]
Herd "immunity" was never reached, at least not in the sense that members of the herd with weaker immune systems were protected due to the virus's inability to circulate thanks to widespread, strong immunity. According to this commonly-cited paper [2], nearly all modern cases of "Influenza A" (a specific type of flu) in humans have been from descendants and variants of the original 1918 virus. The variants temporarily disappeared from active circulation in the 1950s when they were initially outcompeted by the then-novel H2N2, but were accidentally leaked from a lab in the 1970s and have circulated in humans ever since. We are still plagued by variants of the 1918 flu today.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291398/
Herd "immunity" was never reached, at least not in the sense that members of the herd with weaker immune systems were protected due to the virus's inability to circulate thanks to widespread, strong immunity. According to this commonly-cited paper [2], nearly all modern cases of "Influenza A" (a specific type of flu) in humans have been from descendants and variants of the original 1918 virus. The variants temporarily disappeared from active circulation in the 1950s when they were initially outcompeted by the then-novel H2N2, but were accidentally leaked from a lab in the 1970s and have circulated in humans ever since. We are still plagued by variants of the 1918 flu today.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291398/
Variant, strain?
The links are in contradiction to each other, the second one kicking off with An estimated one third of the world's population (or ≈500 million persons) were infected and had clinically apparent illnesses (1,2) during the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic. The disease was exceptionally severe. Case-fatality rates were >2.5%, compared to <0.1% in other influenza pandemics (3,4). Total deaths were estimated at ≈50 million (5–7) and were arguably as high as 100 million (7).
I don't really care to argue about it, my initial comment was measured.
The links are in contradiction to each other, the second one kicking off with An estimated one third of the world's population (or ≈500 million persons) were infected and had clinically apparent illnesses (1,2) during the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic. The disease was exceptionally severe. Case-fatality rates were >2.5%, compared to <0.1% in other influenza pandemics (3,4). Total deaths were estimated at ≈50 million (5–7) and were arguably as high as 100 million (7).
I don't really care to argue about it, my initial comment was measured.
I really don't think lockdowns have helped a ton in the US.
Look at Florida's winter wave of Covid cases vs Massachusetts. The curves are basically identical, despite vastly different pandemic policies.
In other countries yes, but in the USA, are there any real data points that can argue that states with strong lockdowns did better than states without?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/massachusetts-co...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/florida-coronavi...
Look at Florida's winter wave of Covid cases vs Massachusetts. The curves are basically identical, despite vastly different pandemic policies.
In other countries yes, but in the USA, are there any real data points that can argue that states with strong lockdowns did better than states without?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/massachusetts-co...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/florida-coronavi...
Yep, it turns out the last 5-10% of compliance and classifications of valid exceptions to policy actually DOES matter for high-R respitory infections. That has always been true, but before SARS-Cov-2 it didn't matter as much.
And if, say, the US just happens to have a permanant 10% of the population who bristle as anything related to "compliance", you simply can not contain these respitory infections, at best only slow them a bit.
And if, say, the US just happens to have a permanant 10% of the population who bristle as anything related to "compliance", you simply can not contain these respitory infections, at best only slow them a bit.
Shoot, I’m so grateful to be in a state that was loose with the lockdowns. A friend in another state was frustrated that even the large parks where he lived were locked down. Even in our strictest phase, you could still go to the park and get a little relief from the confines of your home. I cannot imagine how other states are coping where things are much stricter. I am just shocked at the mental component of all this. It’s hard to articulate the way it makes you feel living through all this.
That was definitely a knee-jerk reaction a lot of places did. I don't think very many places in the US have closed down parks at this point.
There hasn't been a genuine 'lockdown' anywhere in the united states with the possible exception of NYC in the first month of the pandemic. Otherwise we've basically done the bare minimum and even in places with strict policies you have people working retail, no real travel restrictions, etc.
Lockdowns in the US are theater. Because government can't do much to stop the main driver of the epidemic--people meeting friends and relatives behind closed doors--they ban a bunch of stuff that makes very little difference.
I agree with this 100%. The US flavor of lockdowns are just pointless when there is zero enforcement and even in the most locked down places, indoor gatherings are allowed if they're small.
Plus, in the places in the world where they did do lockdowns, lo and behold, they tended to work.
Nothing that was done in the USA could even remotely be described as a lockdown. And none of the so-called orders came close to being effective. Without enforcement, you might as well call your "Stay at home Order" a "Stay at home Suggestion".
Currently, in the state of California, 99.8% of the population is in the purple (aka Widespread) tier [1]. Yet if you go out of your house and look around, you'll see people carrying on, horsing around, and not taking anything seriously. It's like "back to normal but with masks." And this is reportedly one of the more "locked down" states! It's a total farce, and the result of a cowardly government that makes rules for show but is unwilling to enforce them.
1: https://covid19.ca.gov/safer-economy/
Nothing that was done in the USA could even remotely be described as a lockdown. And none of the so-called orders came close to being effective. Without enforcement, you might as well call your "Stay at home Order" a "Stay at home Suggestion".
Currently, in the state of California, 99.8% of the population is in the purple (aka Widespread) tier [1]. Yet if you go out of your house and look around, you'll see people carrying on, horsing around, and not taking anything seriously. It's like "back to normal but with masks." And this is reportedly one of the more "locked down" states! It's a total farce, and the result of a cowardly government that makes rules for show but is unwilling to enforce them.
1: https://covid19.ca.gov/safer-economy/
It's definitely the worst-of-both-worlds. You can't go to restaurants, so unemployemnt is sky high. But you can go to a house party with almost zero risk of consequences.
I don't think we should be giving hot takes on the pandemic with cherry-picked news articles. I knew someone that said COVID wasn't a big deal in March 2020 because 5% of people died on an isolated cruise ship. The curve may be similar, but unclear to conclude that lockdowns didn't affect absolute numbers. Compare Oregon and Washington vs Arizona and Utah. Also account for rural vs urban counties. Is it that controversial that staying away from each other during a pandemic prevents spread?
Individual actions make a huge difference for an individual's risk level.
The lockdowns that each state imposed were largely ineffective at a macro level in my opinion.
The lockdowns that each state imposed were largely ineffective at a macro level in my opinion.
Which policies in particular are the ineffective one(s), may I ask?
We say "lockdowns" colloquially but it's really a package of policies, such as capacity limits for restaurants, schools potentially closing down, etc. Which ones are the ineffective ones that Massachusetts subscribed to but Florida did not?
We say "lockdowns" colloquially but it's really a package of policies, such as capacity limits for restaurants, schools potentially closing down, etc. Which ones are the ineffective ones that Massachusetts subscribed to but Florida did not?
Two months ago, Los Angeles was apparently going into a second lockdown -- this is what the news outlets were reporting. If you went to the beach on any day of the week, however, you would have seen throngs of unmasked people milling about together.
While I'd love to believe that herd immunity is almost here or the vaccine is effectively stopping the spread already, I think the biggest reason for the drop in new cases as well as the drop in active cases can be summed up in a single word. Christmas. Or more broadly the holiday season.
It's absolutely true that new cases are dropping and active cases are dropping as well but if you look at active cases everything peaked about a month after Christmas to the end of Jan before starting to decline this month. Easter is coming up on April 4th. If enough people have the vaccine + enough people have gotten it to cause herd immunity then active cases will continue to drop throughout March and April. But if the holidays are the main cause for this to spread (as in people ignore the "rules" and intermingle with non-household members as the holidays encourage) I predict another wave in April. The wave hopefully will at least be less severe then the Christmas wave was, but I do think the planet isn't out of the water yet.
It's absolutely true that new cases are dropping and active cases are dropping as well but if you look at active cases everything peaked about a month after Christmas to the end of Jan before starting to decline this month. Easter is coming up on April 4th. If enough people have the vaccine + enough people have gotten it to cause herd immunity then active cases will continue to drop throughout March and April. But if the holidays are the main cause for this to spread (as in people ignore the "rules" and intermingle with non-household members as the holidays encourage) I predict another wave in April. The wave hopefully will at least be less severe then the Christmas wave was, but I do think the planet isn't out of the water yet.
Attributing the rise and fall of it to "christmas", "super bowl", "sturgous rally" or "beachgoers" is a fools errand. It's a monument to the arrogance of humankind.
I think future civilizations are going to study this period and laugh at how foolish and naive we are thinking we have any kind of real control over this virus. The idea that outside pharmaceutical interventions mankind can somehow control a respiratory virus will be mocked by future generations the same way we mock past civilizations that sacrificed goats to appease the rain gods.
The truth is the virus is gonna do what virus do: Virus. It's just part of mother nature and we don't really have any say over its behavior. Outside vaccines and treatments we can control it just about as much we can control earthquakes, tornadoes or volcanos.
I think future civilizations are going to study this period and laugh at how foolish and naive we are thinking we have any kind of real control over this virus. The idea that outside pharmaceutical interventions mankind can somehow control a respiratory virus will be mocked by future generations the same way we mock past civilizations that sacrificed goats to appease the rain gods.
The truth is the virus is gonna do what virus do: Virus. It's just part of mother nature and we don't really have any say over its behavior. Outside vaccines and treatments we can control it just about as much we can control earthquakes, tornadoes or volcanos.
New Zealand has had the virus under control without pharmaceutical help for 9 months now. Many East Asian countries are doing totally fine, with extremely low case numbers and local quarantines for outbreaks.
The difference is pure culture: individualism vs collectivism. In China, not wearing a mask in public makes you a pariah. There’s no such social pressure here in the west.
The difference is pure culture: individualism vs collectivism. In China, not wearing a mask in public makes you a pariah. There’s no such social pressure here in the west.
Not only was there no social pressure to do the right thing in the West, but there was widespread politically-charged COVID denial and downplaying, and hand-wringing about the "costs" of taking even modest steps to reduce transmission. We never really had a chance, with the amount of people actively flaunting public health guidance, downplaying the disease (just the flu, bro) and trying to sabotage efforts to contain it.
Once the disease got politicized, it was game over. One side took it seriously, therefore the other side had to not take it seriously, because heaven forbid you agree with your political opponent about something.
Once the disease got politicized, it was game over. One side took it seriously, therefore the other side had to not take it seriously, because heaven forbid you agree with your political opponent about something.
This doesn't explain why new cases started surging in early November, unless you want to put that on Halloween. Even then, new infections where rising all of October. I'd also argue there weren't clear post-holiday surges beyond people delaying tests.
I don't mean to compare it to herd immunity, but I wonder how much impact there is from people with situations, behaviors and decision making strategies that tend to lead to infection getting immunity.
Essentially, is there enough bias in transmission for some people to make a greater contribution to group immunity than others.
Essentially, is there enough bias in transmission for some people to make a greater contribution to group immunity than others.
At least in the US St. Patrick’s Day would be the obvious next bar crawly, hangout type event, before Easter.
What I love about the news right now is that they've perfected the alchemy of turning every holiday into its own news cycle. Gatherings feared... Experts fear another spike. No proof at all that holiday -> virulence, of course. You should try turning off the news for a bit.
What we do have is proof that increased gatherings lead to increased transmission. We have, I think, a pretty reasonable assumption that holidays lead to increased gatherings.
So, a cautious assumption until data shows it's not accurate that "holidays lead to increased transmission" seems to me to be warranted.
Have you seen data that shows holidays don't lead to increased transmission?
So, a cautious assumption until data shows it's not accurate that "holidays lead to increased transmission" seems to me to be warranted.
Have you seen data that shows holidays don't lead to increased transmission?
The upward curve started well before Thanksgiving -- really around October 1 we started seeing the summer flatness yield to an upward curve, it was steepest in November, peaking around mid-January. If the holidays were end of November through December, wouldn't the spike have started around December 1?
The upward curve can be attributed to many things and all of it conjecture until it's proven, but the FACT is increased gathering = increased transmission. There's no getting around that fact no matter where you point the finger. It's literally how this turned into a pandemic. Therefor logic is weighted towards holidays (increased gathering) leading to increased transmission.
The upward curve can be a result of school openings and then the sudden steep upward trajectory in the beginning of November being due to Halloween followed by continued Holiday visitation throughout Nov/Dec. There's also the messaging from the Trump administration that encouraged masses of people to ignore rules and treat the virus as if it's "no worse than the flu".
Similarly the reduction in cases can - speculatively - be attributed to better protocols being implemented nationwide; e.g. states that had lax rules having an "oh shit" moment when hospital capacities were at maximum which in turn resulted in stricter measures. Better mitigation strategies in schools across the nation is another reason. Trump's election drama diverted attention away from the "covid = hoax", so people were more willing to accept stricter rules.
Lastly - and this is something that can't really be proven so take it with a grain of salt - people are avoiding testing in order to drive down rates so the schools can fully re-open. I think we might be able to see hints of this last one in hospitalization data if those numbers remain the same while the case numbers drop.
EDIT: https://covidtracking.com/data shows hospitalizations are also dropping (although deaths only started dropping recently), so I would say that last reason for cases dropping is bullshit concocted on social media, but I'm going to leave it on this post so others can call it out as BS when they see it elsewhere
The upward curve can be a result of school openings and then the sudden steep upward trajectory in the beginning of November being due to Halloween followed by continued Holiday visitation throughout Nov/Dec. There's also the messaging from the Trump administration that encouraged masses of people to ignore rules and treat the virus as if it's "no worse than the flu".
Similarly the reduction in cases can - speculatively - be attributed to better protocols being implemented nationwide; e.g. states that had lax rules having an "oh shit" moment when hospital capacities were at maximum which in turn resulted in stricter measures. Better mitigation strategies in schools across the nation is another reason. Trump's election drama diverted attention away from the "covid = hoax", so people were more willing to accept stricter rules.
Lastly - and this is something that can't really be proven so take it with a grain of salt - people are avoiding testing in order to drive down rates so the schools can fully re-open. I think we might be able to see hints of this last one in hospitalization data if those numbers remain the same while the case numbers drop.
EDIT: https://covidtracking.com/data shows hospitalizations are also dropping (although deaths only started dropping recently), so I would say that last reason for cases dropping is bullshit concocted on social media, but I'm going to leave it on this post so others can call it out as BS when they see it elsewhere
I really don't think you can blame Halloween for the kickoff of an increase in cases.. that feels like a huge stretch.
I feel like the most likely candidate is weather. Even hot places like Florida and California get cooler, shorter days, with less humidity.
I feel like the most likely candidate is weather. Even hot places like Florida and California get cooler, shorter days, with less humidity.
That is not evidence that holidays do not lead to increased transmission.
It is evidence that other things can also lead to increased transmission.
If my hypothesis were "ONLY holidays can lead to increase transmission", then that evidence would falsify it.
But my hypothesis is that "holidays can lead to increased transmission", so that evidence doesn't falsify it.
It is evidence that other things can also lead to increased transmission.
If my hypothesis were "ONLY holidays can lead to increase transmission", then that evidence would falsify it.
But my hypothesis is that "holidays can lead to increased transmission", so that evidence doesn't falsify it.
It's hard to prove a negative, for sure. I just don't really see the data that shows the holidays had much effect. There was already a hard bend upwards well before the holidays started. It's certainly possible that the holidays made it worse and the peak ended higher than it needed to, but they certainly didn't create the winter spike.
> a pretty reasonable assumption that holidays lead to increased gatherings
Not necessarily. They also removed one big set of gatherings: Work.
Workplaces and the commute to them are massive contributors. Many people are in (loose) contact with many more people at work than at a large Thanksgiving dinner, and contact tracing is a lot more effective for the Thanksgiving dinner (everyone there is a close contact) vs. work ("oh, but they were more than 1.5 meters apart, so it doesn't count" because you can't quarantine everyone in a 100+ people open plan office that you've been saturating with infectious aerosols for 8 hours).
Not necessarily. They also removed one big set of gatherings: Work.
Workplaces and the commute to them are massive contributors. Many people are in (loose) contact with many more people at work than at a large Thanksgiving dinner, and contact tracing is a lot more effective for the Thanksgiving dinner (everyone there is a close contact) vs. work ("oh, but they were more than 1.5 meters apart, so it doesn't count" because you can't quarantine everyone in a 100+ people open plan office that you've been saturating with infectious aerosols for 8 hours).
I think that's a totally fair point, and a reason that assumption might be incorrect.
To be clear I don't mean "a pretty reasonable assumption" to mean it was exceptionally likely to be true (with, say 95% confidence) in my mind in this it's more like a 65% chance of being true.
I guess I was using it as shorthand for "my prior is >50%"
Anyway, I wouldn't be shocked if that assumption was wrong and if it is, it makes sense that it'd be for the reasons you outline
To be clear I don't mean "a pretty reasonable assumption" to mean it was exceptionally likely to be true (with, say 95% confidence) in my mind in this it's more like a 65% chance of being true.
I guess I was using it as shorthand for "my prior is >50%"
Anyway, I wouldn't be shocked if that assumption was wrong and if it is, it makes sense that it'd be for the reasons you outline
Anecdotally, it seemed to cause a lot of cynicism when BLM protests, where everyone was packed in pretty good, were barely mentioned in mass media as a potential source of virus transmission.
And yes, I get that it's considered more morally justified by many than watching football in a stadium or playing hockey. But at some point, the virus transmission in a given scenario needs to be dispassionately assessed whether you're robbing a bank or feeding orphans in Uganda.
And yes, I get that it's considered more morally justified by many than watching football in a stadium or playing hockey. But at some point, the virus transmission in a given scenario needs to be dispassionately assessed whether you're robbing a bank or feeding orphans in Uganda.
This is an argument that first appeared in July 2020.[1][2] That led to comments such as, in October 2020, "If we add t-cell immunity (greater than 50%) to antibody immunity (around 20%) we have over 60% immunity in the general population which qualifies as population immunity (herd immunity). This is why we have not seen exponential growth of the disease anywhere in the world and why we will not see a second wave…".
That was not a successful prediction.
There's an experimental skin test being developed for COVID-19 T-cell immunity.[3] It's from a startup which announced the test, three new vaccines, and a share offering at the same time, which raises some questions. But at least people are working on this.
[1] https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/07/28/immune-t-cells-may-...
[2] https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/07/15/ne...
[3] https://www.bioworld.com/articles/503586-tonix-looks-to-the-...
That was not a successful prediction.
There's an experimental skin test being developed for COVID-19 T-cell immunity.[3] It's from a startup which announced the test, three new vaccines, and a share offering at the same time, which raises some questions. But at least people are working on this.
[1] https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/07/28/immune-t-cells-may-...
[2] https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/07/15/ne...
[3] https://www.bioworld.com/articles/503586-tonix-looks-to-the-...
> But the consistent and rapid decline in daily cases since Jan. 8 can be explained only by natural immunity.
Why would "natural immunity" kick in this suddenly and effectively?
> Behavior didn’t suddenly improve over the holidays; Americans traveled more over Christmas than they had since March.
Yes, and then after the holidays they stayed home, so one or two weeks after the traveling seasons there were much fewer infections. I don't see why this explanation is dismissed.
Anyway, it's not so long until April, so we'll see soon if "Covid will be mostly gone by April". ("By" appears vague, but my understanding is that refers more to "at the beginning of April" rather than "at the end of April", could Americans confirm?) Of course even if it does disappear as suddenly as this person predicts, we might not be able to tell whether it was due to vaccination.
Why would "natural immunity" kick in this suddenly and effectively?
> Behavior didn’t suddenly improve over the holidays; Americans traveled more over Christmas than they had since March.
Yes, and then after the holidays they stayed home, so one or two weeks after the traveling seasons there were much fewer infections. I don't see why this explanation is dismissed.
Anyway, it's not so long until April, so we'll see soon if "Covid will be mostly gone by April". ("By" appears vague, but my understanding is that refers more to "at the beginning of April" rather than "at the end of April", could Americans confirm?) Of course even if it does disappear as suddenly as this person predicts, we might not be able to tell whether it was due to vaccination.
Also we saw the post-christmas drop in multiple countries and pretty much every state, so it would have to be a pretty crazy coincidence for everyone to have gotten herd immunity at the same time.
yes, "Covid will be mostly gone by April" would mean the beginning April. However, if it's not gone, you can assume the response will be "oh i meant by the end of April".
You have to love those moving goalposts.
The goalposts were installed on a speeding train early last year.
2 weeks to bend the curve!
Thanks. And yeah, "mostly gone" also offers a lot of wiggle room.
American here:
"By April" is perhaps intentionally vague, as it's such a long period of time. "This will be done by Monday" tells me not to expect it before end-of-day Monday.
"By April" is perhaps intentionally vague, as it's such a long period of time. "This will be done by Monday" tells me not to expect it before end-of-day Monday.
The claim made by the author is that IFR is 0.23, 500k are dead therefore 200m have had it.
On the other hand if IFR were 0.69 then the picture would be rather different - 73m. Some estimates (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infec...) put IFR as high as 1.79 which would mean 30m infected so far.
On the other hand if IFR were 0.69 then the picture would be rather different - 73m. Some estimates (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infec...) put IFR as high as 1.79 which would mean 30m infected so far.
The assumed prevalence rate (infections/cases) seems really high. Youyang Gu's modeling assumes more like 1 in 3.5 caught implying a 2x lower infection rate and thus a lot further from herd immunity (https://covid19-projections.com/path-to-herd-immunity/)
Gu's modeling also seems much more consistent with numbers I've seen from other papers (hospitalization and death rates).
This reads just bizarrely. The author assumes we'd be near the expected herd immunity threshold (60%) in the face of extensive social distancing? We certainly are at herd immunity in a world with interventions, but those drastically lower the base reproductive number.
Gu's modeling also seems much more consistent with numbers I've seen from other papers (hospitalization and death rates).
This reads just bizarrely. The author assumes we'd be near the expected herd immunity threshold (60%) in the face of extensive social distancing? We certainly are at herd immunity in a world with interventions, but those drastically lower the base reproductive number.
How much of that drop is because of the change in threshold of PCR testing, or do to the overall reduction in testing? Personally I think the testing has been poor since the beginning and we shouldn't trust the numbers we currently have. If the numbers change dramatically in the near future, why should we trust them? Or maybe the truth is that the numbers that come in April are the actual truth and what we have seen is do to failures in testing.
I was thinking the same thing, but a more conservative estimate using people who have had at least 1 dose of the vaccine or those who have recovered to calculate herd immunity.
https://github.com/Arkwin/US-COVID-Herd-Immunity-Tracker/
I update the data from the CDC website every day.
https://github.com/Arkwin/US-COVID-Herd-Immunity-Tracker/
I update the data from the CDC website every day.
Looks like we're currently hovering around 21.39% and were at 15.26% on 2021-01-31.
6% in ~22 days
At what level are we considered herd immune? When 50.1% of the population is immune/recovered?
6% in ~22 days
At what level are we considered herd immune? When 50.1% of the population is immune/recovered?
It depends on the r value of the virus. A more transmissible virus requires a higher level of population immunity. Most common estimate I've seen for covid is 70-80%
Is it foolish to extrapolate that:
* we are at 20%
* we need to reach 80%
* we have 60% to go
* we got 6% in 22 days
* 60% / 6% in 22 days = 220 days until the country can reopen?
* we are at 20%
* we need to reach 80%
* we have 60% to go
* we got 6% in 22 days
* 60% / 6% in 22 days = 220 days until the country can reopen?
Having no background whatsoever in this area of science, I would imagine that the percentages change over time as some individuals are still going out more or less living their lives and some are holed up extremely risk averse and won't be infected unless their 1 trip to the grocery store per week is compromised.
And it'd be similar for who is readily willing to take the vaccine vs. will refuse to ever do so.
And it'd be similar for who is readily willing to take the vaccine vs. will refuse to ever do so.
[deleted]
WSJ Opinion page, known for such classics as “There won’t be a second wave - Mike Pence” in June (which mysteriously all the links I find to it are returning 503 now hmm)
First google result worked for me: https://www.wsj.com/articles/there-isnt-a-coronavirus-second...
Yup looks like it is up now, was a temporary blip
Yup looks like it is up now, was a temporary blip
Note that we still don't have much data on whether and by how much vaccinations do reduce transmission. The objective of the vaccines was to minimize serious cases. But transmissions are a different story. It could easily be that the vaccine prevents serious cases in 95% of people but transmission is not impacted significantly. We just don't know yet.
Why is this relevant? Because the whole concept of "herd immunity" is only about transmission.
Why is this relevant? Because the whole concept of "herd immunity" is only about transmission.
This is no longer true. We do have data that the vaccines reduce transmission, thanks to Israel's mass vaccination program: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-va...
The margin of reduced transmission is very close to the margin of reduced symptoms: 90% reduction in asymptomatic transmission, and 93% reduction for symptomatic transmission.
The study is only on Pfizer's vaccines, but I would expect Moderna's to perform similarly, since they're both MRNA vaccines targeting the spike protein and they have similar effectiveness at reducing symptoms.
The margin of reduced transmission is very close to the margin of reduced symptoms: 90% reduction in asymptomatic transmission, and 93% reduction for symptomatic transmission.
The study is only on Pfizer's vaccines, but I would expect Moderna's to perform similarly, since they're both MRNA vaccines targeting the spike protein and they have similar effectiveness at reducing symptoms.
Excellent! Thanks for the link. This needs more studies but it's a promising data point.
I'm surprised that these studies come so late. Vaccination strategies need to be quite different depending on their outcomes.
I'm surprised that these studies come so late. Vaccination strategies need to be quite different depending on their outcomes.
Careful there—those conclusions may be overstated because of bias in the people getting tested in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated groups (https://mobile.twitter.com/ZoeMcLaren/status/136358205077574...)
Minor quibble: the vaccines were tested on their ability to minimize symptomatic cases of any kind, not just serious cases. In fact, the Pfizer study didn't have any data on serious cases at all (they had a total of 4 serious cases, one in the vaccine group, three in the control group - not enough to make any prediction at all on the effect against serious cases.
The other studies fare a little better, but we know a lot more about the effects on any kind of Covid19 than on serious cases, or on transmission of SARS-COV-2 itself.
The other studies fare a little better, but we know a lot more about the effects on any kind of Covid19 than on serious cases, or on transmission of SARS-COV-2 itself.
For BioNTech it looks good: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-21/pfizer-bi...
A side question: the vaccines have been out for months. Why is there no data on whether or not they affect transmission?
That seems like something that could be figured out within a week or two of the vaccine being finalized.
I have been worrying that the now all too familiar "we still don't know if the vaccine prevents transmission" is just a stand in for saying "it doesn't". Every additional week makes me less hopeful.
That seems like something that could be figured out within a week or two of the vaccine being finalized.
I have been worrying that the now all too familiar "we still don't know if the vaccine prevents transmission" is just a stand in for saying "it doesn't". Every additional week makes me less hopeful.
> That seems like something that could be figured out within a week or two of the vaccine being finalized.
Just what kind of a study do you think could do that within "a week or two"?
Just what kind of a study do you think could do that within "a week or two"?
How would you go about figuring that out?
What the trials have mostly been checking so far is “does the vaccine prevent serious illness”, and they measure that by counting occurrences in the test group vs placebo group. Very straightforward, which is why it’s possible to do it fairly quickly.
What the trials have mostly been checking so far is “does the vaccine prevent serious illness”, and they measure that by counting occurrences in the test group vs placebo group. Very straightforward, which is why it’s possible to do it fairly quickly.
And, of course the measurements are about false positives.
If you are vaccinated and then come in contact with someone who is infected, do you test positive? Nobody knows, really. And people you are in contact with? Unknown.
If you are vaccinated and then come in contact with someone who is infected, do you test positive? Nobody knows, really. And people you are in contact with? Unknown.
We are already at some level of community immunity now - from natural immunity and vaccinations - enough that hospitals will not be overwhelmed. What is the justification for continued lockdown and closure of schools? Surely voluntary measures are sufficient at this point?
We CAN be at normalcy in the US by April if we do the following:
-approve Astrazeneca
-First Doses First
If we vaccinate those over 50 who want to be vaccinated, the death rate will plummet about 90%. Then, COVID is similar to flu level of societal death and I don't see any reason most people can't be completely normal. This ignores anti vaxers whose deaths are sad but should probably be considered closer to "negligent deaths" or something.
But this article is just wishful thinking, that boils down to "we expect us to 10x the pace we vaccinate new people over the next 40 days and actual infection rates are 2x what experts think."
I guess I hope he is right but this is probably just fantasy thinking.
If we vaccinate those over 50 who want to be vaccinated, the death rate will plummet about 90%. Then, COVID is similar to flu level of societal death and I don't see any reason most people can't be completely normal. This ignores anti vaxers whose deaths are sad but should probably be considered closer to "negligent deaths" or something.
But this article is just wishful thinking, that boils down to "we expect us to 10x the pace we vaccinate new people over the next 40 days and actual infection rates are 2x what experts think."
I guess I hope he is right but this is probably just fantasy thinking.
The focus on deaths ignores permanent effects that some survivors have. Lung damage, loss of taste/smell, etc.
I don't know the data on how many people have long-lasting effects, but I do know some people have had them.
I don't know the data on how many people have long-lasting effects, but I do know some people have had them.
"Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored: Cases are down 77% over the past six weeks."
Yes, we are down to the level we were...last fall.
Yes, we are down to the level we were...last fall.
Or last July, depending on which spike you want to pick.
https://covidactnow.org/?s=1613556
https://covidactnow.org/?s=1613556
I though these bits were interesting. There seems to be a paternalistic attitude among various experts, and I don't think it helps the situation.
> I have argued for months that we could save more American lives if those with prior Covid-19 infection forgo vaccines until all vulnerable seniors get their first dose. Several studies demonstrate that natural immunity should protect those who had Covid-19 until more vaccines are available. Half my friends in the medical community told me: Good idea. The other half said there isn’t enough data on natural immunity
> Some medical experts privately agreed with my prediction that there may be very little Covid-19 by April but suggested that I not to talk publicly about herd immunity because people might become complacent and fail to take precautions or might decline the vaccine.
> I have argued for months that we could save more American lives if those with prior Covid-19 infection forgo vaccines until all vulnerable seniors get their first dose. Several studies demonstrate that natural immunity should protect those who had Covid-19 until more vaccines are available. Half my friends in the medical community told me: Good idea. The other half said there isn’t enough data on natural immunity
> Some medical experts privately agreed with my prediction that there may be very little Covid-19 by April but suggested that I not to talk publicly about herd immunity because people might become complacent and fail to take precautions or might decline the vaccine.
I'm not sure how much stock I would put into this type of claim in an opinion article, but anecdotally, I've been tracking the daily new cases and percent positive in my area very closely for a while.
Especially in the last couple of weeks the percent positive & new cases has fallen dramatically. Seemingly for no good reason. In my state, we are now consistently seeing percent positive less than 10%. After the holidays, especially Christmas, it spiked up to 25% or more. This makes me wonder if we are in fact nearing some sort of turning point as the number of folks who have contracted it must be pretty high, and people are getting vaccinated.
Are others seeing this same trend in their area?
Especially in the last couple of weeks the percent positive & new cases has fallen dramatically. Seemingly for no good reason. In my state, we are now consistently seeing percent positive less than 10%. After the holidays, especially Christmas, it spiked up to 25% or more. This makes me wonder if we are in fact nearing some sort of turning point as the number of folks who have contracted it must be pretty high, and people are getting vaccinated.
Are others seeing this same trend in their area?
It's important to remember that the positivity rate is a measure of how much testing you're doing, not a measure of how much virus is around. Unless you're reading articles about the politics of rapid tests or the like, you should mostly just ignore the pos rate, it doesn't tell you anything useful otherwise.
I think you may have this backwards? As testing rates increase, we would expect the positivity rate to go down, as you are now testing more people who have never contracted COVID. The more testing we're doing, the more we expect the positivity rate to approach the actual percentage of infected folks.
If you're only testing people in hospitals and reporting systems, you're going to have a much higher positivity rate.
If you're only testing people in hospitals and reporting systems, you're going to have a much higher positivity rate.
I'm reading numbers from my states department of health site, and they only report molecular tests. You are right percent positive, and even daily new cases, it's not a measure of how much virus is around, and should taken with a grain of salt.
But they are some of the only metrics we have, and if you keep the caveats in mind, I don't agree that they aren't useful.
What else would you suggest looking at? Deaths? In my state, the daily new deaths numbers are following the same trend. So if you keep in mind percent positive is heavily influenced by total number of tests, and the daily new deaths chart is following the same trend, then that seems like very positive new to me.
But they are some of the only metrics we have, and if you keep the caveats in mind, I don't agree that they aren't useful.
What else would you suggest looking at? Deaths? In my state, the daily new deaths numbers are following the same trend. So if you keep in mind percent positive is heavily influenced by total number of tests, and the daily new deaths chart is following the same trend, then that seems like very positive new to me.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with the way all our numbers are heading. I just don't quite understand how it is that in the US we've come to latch onto the positivity rate as a meaningful measure of stuff. In the UK and Europe, they routinely report the R0 (...or other related measures), which is a zillion times more useful when thinking about how the pandemic is going.
If one was coming to this conclusion from a single data point, you might be right, but the OP is referring to the period-over-period change. This is a significant trend.
But only if the testing rate (which is the denominator) stays the same. And it never does, because as fewer people get sick, fewer people get tested.
There are many countries exhibiting a similar downward trend, there must be some more global phenomenon at play - https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToS...
Getting further away from Christmas/New Year's probably explains a lot of it.
Absolutely. The thanksgiving/ Christmas/ NYE combo was brutal.
No matter what, you just couldn’t keep families from congregating after isolating for most of the year. So much COVID transmission happened during this time period.
No matter what, you just couldn’t keep families from congregating after isolating for most of the year. So much COVID transmission happened during this time period.
Yes, this is happening in Texas too. Antigen positivity rate:
2020 Jul = 25%
2020 Aug = 6
2020 Sep = 4
2020 Oct = 7
2020 Nov = 8
2020 Dec = 9
2021 Jan = 13
2021 Feb = 4
2020 Jul = 25%
2020 Aug = 6
2020 Sep = 4
2020 Oct = 7
2020 Nov = 8
2020 Dec = 9
2021 Jan = 13
2021 Feb = 4
“ No, we won't. A deeply flawed oped
https://wsj.com/articles/well-have-herd-immunity-by-april-11...
—55% of Americans do not have natural immunity
—2/3 of the US population has not had covid
—Wrong on T-cell protection
—Very high Brazil infection rate was not protective
—150M will not be vaccinated by March end”
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1362513761383321602
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1362513761383321602
Just wait until you get the British variant.
Edit: to explain my point a bit: the British variant has a higher reproductive number. The existing immunity and measures in some cases can be enough to reduce the numbers of the traditional variants, while not being enough to stop the growth of the British variant. This is happening in Germany for instance right now. Currently the numbers are suddenly stagnating and soon will start to rise again while the measures stay the same.
Edit: to explain my point a bit: the British variant has a higher reproductive number. The existing immunity and measures in some cases can be enough to reduce the numbers of the traditional variants, while not being enough to stop the growth of the British variant. This is happening in Germany for instance right now. Currently the numbers are suddenly stagnating and soon will start to rise again while the measures stay the same.
Why spread FUD? Both vaccines in the US seem to be effective against variants.
The British variant spreads faster than you can possibly vaccinate people. In Germany the case numbers are still going down, but if you look at the wildtype and B.1.1.7 separately, the wildtype is going down while the British variant is in full exponential growth. And that is in spite of a full nationwide hard lockdown.
*than Germany can possibly vaccinate people
I would expect Germany to rank near the top of any world ranking of "capacity for effective public action". Brazil and its twin USA are not at the top of those rankings.
You'd be mistaken.
> The British variant spreads faster than you can possibly vaccinate people.
This is a bit overblown.
In the UK the B 1.1.7 variant is the dominant form by far, but vaccinations are outpacing infections by a long way.
Today there were 10,641 new cases recorded, and a 7-day mean of daily vaccination doses delivered of about 350k: about 35 times the current infection rate.
Infections have been falling for weeks, albeit with quite a tight lockdown. Vaccinations have been declining slightly for the past week but expected to accelerate again soon.
This is a bit overblown.
In the UK the B 1.1.7 variant is the dominant form by far, but vaccinations are outpacing infections by a long way.
Today there were 10,641 new cases recorded, and a 7-day mean of daily vaccination doses delivered of about 350k: about 35 times the current infection rate.
Infections have been falling for weeks, albeit with quite a tight lockdown. Vaccinations have been declining slightly for the past week but expected to accelerate again soon.
The article isn’t about vaccinations but rather primarily about “naturally attained” immunity.
The US isn’t going to hit 80% vaccination by April.
The US isn’t going to hit 80% vaccination by April.
Pfizer has stated that their virus might not have the same efficacy against some of the variants - in particular the ones that have included changes to the spike protein.
This includes one of the two British variants (the one from Bristol rather than the one from Kent).
This includes one of the two British variants (the one from Bristol rather than the one from Kent).
The South African variant is already known to escape neutralization by convalescent serum containing covid antibodies. It's too early to see whether T-cell immunity will be adaptive enough to handle it in vivo.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.18.427166v1
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.18.427166v1
[deleted]
Then again, not going to trust the WSJ for scientific news (opinion?). Their record isn't exactly stellar.
One thing that I have never seen mentioned is that the population is not homogeneous.
You don't need 70% of immunity to have herd immunity if half the population never leaves their house: you can get away with 35%.
You don't need 70% of immunity to have herd immunity if half the population never leaves their house: you can get away with 35%.
The WSJ editorial section's track record on COVID based information has been, to put it kindly, not good. Why are we taking it with any kind of authority NOW?
Herd immunity means either you died or you didn't.
Those who didnt die are now the (smaller) herd and (presumedly) immune.
Those who didnt die are now the (smaller) herd and (presumedly) immune.
Will we have herd immunity to the variants?
Likely some, but I suspect it won't matter in terms of repoening. Lockdowns have been premised on a light at the end of the tunnel. Humans are too social to live like this indefinitely, and the virus, especially if the vaccines are only somewhat effective, will be good enough.
That said, the vaccines all seem to offer some degree of protection to the variants, naturally acquired immunity probably will too, and the virus will have to adapt to multiple vaccines and natural immunity very quickly to continue spreading.
That said, the vaccines all seem to offer some degree of protection to the variants, naturally acquired immunity probably will too, and the virus will have to adapt to multiple vaccines and natural immunity very quickly to continue spreading.
[deleted]
immunity or not, a lot of people are going to stop caring about it altogether
The author, Marty Makary, is a surgon. He does not have any expertise regarding viruses or epidemiology.
He's completely ignoring all other reasons why infection might go down, the most important one being effective countermeasures, like wearing masks and social distancing. He's also ignoring that the case rates are stagnating due to the British variant. Germany is in that phase now. Cases of the British variant are in exponential growth, current lockdown measures are not effective against it.
He's completely ignoring all other reasons why infection might go down, the most important one being effective countermeasures, like wearing masks and social distancing. He's also ignoring that the case rates are stagnating due to the British variant. Germany is in that phase now. Cases of the British variant are in exponential growth, current lockdown measures are not effective against it.
The author’s point is that by now, something at least 50% of the US population has had the virus and 15% have had the vaccine. And that for some reason, the official sources are just putting their hands on their ears and saying “LALALALALALALALALA” at the mere mention of herd immunity.
There is a resistance to accepting that this pandemic is soon going to end the way that just about every pandemic in the entirety of human history and pre-history has ended: enough people have had the virus and developed some level of immunity to prevent pandemic-level spread. The only difference is that we are giving the natural process a little boost through vaccination (but not by much since we got a late start because we refused to do challenge trials, so the vaccine that was done in May was not distributed until December because more tedious and less accurate non-challenge trials had to be done).
I think there will be a hesitancy to accept this because lockdowns[0] and universal vaccination, reasonable ideas, have moved on from being points of pragmatic policy to being points of political dogma, such that they are resistant even to changing facts. And after being fed the nonsensical “if it saves even one life” line by their political heroes, it will be difficult for many people to accept that the real calculation involves accepting some “advanced” deaths (a strange concept because old folks on their death bed succumbing to the next common cold are usually not considered to have died earlier than they “should have”) for the sake of getting on with life, just like we do every year with all sorts of diseases in circulation.
It also represents of failure by the public health officials and experts. Because the vaccine was needlessly delayed, not many more lives were saved than if the virus was just allowed to run its course sometime last summer (once we discovered that ventilators were actively harmful in many cases) along with some basic precautions for vulnerable populations. We were held back by rigid medical ethics requirements banning challenge trials. So while individual cities could have hundreds or thousands of new cases per day, deliberately infecting a few hundred healthy people for the purpose of testing the vaccine was PROHIBITED. We lost half a year to this, trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, and millions of livelihoods. All because we let a bunch of medical ethics theorists in ivory towers told us that we couldn't run common-sense low-risk trials.
There is a resistance to accepting that this pandemic is soon going to end the way that just about every pandemic in the entirety of human history and pre-history has ended: enough people have had the virus and developed some level of immunity to prevent pandemic-level spread. The only difference is that we are giving the natural process a little boost through vaccination (but not by much since we got a late start because we refused to do challenge trials, so the vaccine that was done in May was not distributed until December because more tedious and less accurate non-challenge trials had to be done).
I think there will be a hesitancy to accept this because lockdowns[0] and universal vaccination, reasonable ideas, have moved on from being points of pragmatic policy to being points of political dogma, such that they are resistant even to changing facts. And after being fed the nonsensical “if it saves even one life” line by their political heroes, it will be difficult for many people to accept that the real calculation involves accepting some “advanced” deaths (a strange concept because old folks on their death bed succumbing to the next common cold are usually not considered to have died earlier than they “should have”) for the sake of getting on with life, just like we do every year with all sorts of diseases in circulation.
It also represents of failure by the public health officials and experts. Because the vaccine was needlessly delayed, not many more lives were saved than if the virus was just allowed to run its course sometime last summer (once we discovered that ventilators were actively harmful in many cases) along with some basic precautions for vulnerable populations. We were held back by rigid medical ethics requirements banning challenge trials. So while individual cities could have hundreds or thousands of new cases per day, deliberately infecting a few hundred healthy people for the purpose of testing the vaccine was PROHIBITED. We lost half a year to this, trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, and millions of livelihoods. All because we let a bunch of medical ethics theorists in ivory towers told us that we couldn't run common-sense low-risk trials.
When you say "the vaccine was done in May" do you include building the manufacturing system that would create it and put it into a supply chain? This is a physical thing, not a website, scaling a website to cope with 100m requests is helluva job - scaling a physical product to 100m items is much, much, much harder. Especially when it is a medical product.
I think you have forgotten this small detail.
Another detail : yes we found that ventilators were harmful, but we also found that other forms of assisted breathing like high nasal flow oxygen were effective. Additionally we found that giving steroids was effective. There are other treatments coming online now in addition to this - so when we look at delaying the pandemic and the benefit there of we need to understand that the survival rate for patients has improved over that time.
You seem to have forgotten this small detail.
When we talk about this as a natural process in a population and allowing it to happen the people it happens to in the summer rather than the winter live 6 months less. They may have written a book or a play or helped their grandchildren become the people they need to be in that time span.
You seem to have forgotten this small detail.
I think you have forgotten this small detail.
Another detail : yes we found that ventilators were harmful, but we also found that other forms of assisted breathing like high nasal flow oxygen were effective. Additionally we found that giving steroids was effective. There are other treatments coming online now in addition to this - so when we look at delaying the pandemic and the benefit there of we need to understand that the survival rate for patients has improved over that time.
You seem to have forgotten this small detail.
When we talk about this as a natural process in a population and allowing it to happen the people it happens to in the summer rather than the winter live 6 months less. They may have written a book or a play or helped their grandchildren become the people they need to be in that time span.
You seem to have forgotten this small detail.
The vaccine could have been rolled out to the most vulnerable groups much sooner than it was. If you vaccinate only those groups (and the vaccine works), you prevent the vast majority deaths.
>When we talk about this as a natural process in a population and allowing it to happen the people it happens to in the summer rather than the winter live 6 months less. They may have written a book or a play or helped their grandchildren become the people they need to be in that time span.
As for your last point, that's not how it works. To the extent that the disease runs its course through the population anyway, then there's also people aging (and infirming) INTO the vulnerable group too, who would have lived if they caught it in the summer but upon catching it six-months later die.
Another way to look at it is that it's not any better or worse that a pandemic hits one year or the other (putting aside population growth). A flu pandemic in 1905 is no better than a flu pandemic in 1904. It just kills a different set of people.
And actually, by extending the period where the virus is in pandemic circulation, and to the extent that it will spread through the population anyway, you probably kill more people by stretching the pandemic out. Virus survivors die for other reasons, "wasting" their immunity, and like I said above, more people become newly vulnerable to the virus.
>When we talk about this as a natural process in a population and allowing it to happen the people it happens to in the summer rather than the winter live 6 months less. They may have written a book or a play or helped their grandchildren become the people they need to be in that time span.
As for your last point, that's not how it works. To the extent that the disease runs its course through the population anyway, then there's also people aging (and infirming) INTO the vulnerable group too, who would have lived if they caught it in the summer but upon catching it six-months later die.
Another way to look at it is that it's not any better or worse that a pandemic hits one year or the other (putting aside population growth). A flu pandemic in 1905 is no better than a flu pandemic in 1904. It just kills a different set of people.
And actually, by extending the period where the virus is in pandemic circulation, and to the extent that it will spread through the population anyway, you probably kill more people by stretching the pandemic out. Virus survivors die for other reasons, "wasting" their immunity, and like I said above, more people become newly vulnerable to the virus.
> The vaccine could have been rolled out to the most vulnerable groups much sooner than it was. If you vaccinate only those groups (and the vaccine works), you prevent the vast majority deaths.
Challenge trial don't include the vulnerable groups, so how would you know if a vaccine works for them without doing the normal non-challenge trials?
Vulnerable groups are also usually much more affected by side effects. A vaccine that has no serious side effects in the small, young, healthy people that challenge trials are done on might have severe side effects in vulnerable groups.
Challenge trial don't include the vulnerable groups, so how would you know if a vaccine works for them without doing the normal non-challenge trials?
Vulnerable groups are also usually much more affected by side effects. A vaccine that has no serious side effects in the small, young, healthy people that challenge trials are done on might have severe side effects in vulnerable groups.
>And actually, by extending the period where the virus is in pandemic circulation, and to the extent that it will spread through the population anyway, you probably kill more people by stretching the pandemic out. Virus survivors die for other reasons, "wasting" their immunity, and like I said above, more people become newly vulnerable to the virus.
Unless vaccine
Unless vaccine
> He's completely ignoring all other reasons why infection might go down, the most important one being effective countermeasures, like wearing masks and social distancing.
If those measures are so effective, why did they take nearly a year for an effect to be seen?
If those measures are so effective, why did they take nearly a year for an effect to be seen?
I agree, cases are falling so fast and so dramatically in Texas that it looks like a data error.
I see no way masks and social distancing resulted in the drop off happening now. We're at levels not seen since the mins in Sept/Oct which outruns the holiday wave. I can't make heads or tails of it.
https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2020/texas-coronaviru...
edit: the past weather has certainly had an effect on testing but the drop off predates the storm.
I see no way masks and social distancing resulted in the drop off happening now. We're at levels not seen since the mins in Sept/Oct which outruns the holiday wave. I can't make heads or tails of it.
https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2020/texas-coronaviru...
edit: the past weather has certainly had an effect on testing but the drop off predates the storm.
There's more:
* The WHO updated their guidelines for PCR tests in a way that could cause this (because the tests were being misused, the new guidelines clarify how they're supposed to be used in a way the previous ones did not), except the update also happened after the drop started.
* The drop is worldwide, it seems like only a handful of countries aren't experiencing it. In most places it started at various parts of January, but here in Illinois it started in November (minus spikes that correlate to Thanksgiving/Christmas/New Years).
* There is no correlation in the US between "lockdown states" and "reopened states". It's just dropping everywhere.
My personal belief: We already hit herd immunity in most of the world a month ago. There's a few possibilities for why this would be (underestimating cross-immunity or how far the virus has spread, for example), but it's really hard to say for sure.
* The WHO updated their guidelines for PCR tests in a way that could cause this (because the tests were being misused, the new guidelines clarify how they're supposed to be used in a way the previous ones did not), except the update also happened after the drop started.
* The drop is worldwide, it seems like only a handful of countries aren't experiencing it. In most places it started at various parts of January, but here in Illinois it started in November (minus spikes that correlate to Thanksgiving/Christmas/New Years).
* There is no correlation in the US between "lockdown states" and "reopened states". It's just dropping everywhere.
My personal belief: We already hit herd immunity in most of the world a month ago. There's a few possibilities for why this would be (underestimating cross-immunity or how far the virus has spread, for example), but it's really hard to say for sure.
bullet three is pretty fascinating for all kinds of flame-war inducing reasons that I'm just going to leave out.
Because the virus is too slow and people are idiots, clearly.
Cases of the British variant are in exponential growth, current lockdown measures are not effective against it.
Not in Britain.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
Not in Britain.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
The daily growth in Britain is -6% to -3% with current British lockdown measures which I believe are stronger than average worldwide. Certainly stronger than pre-Christmas 2020 British measures.
In England (Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar but different rules because of devolution): * All schools are closed bar vulnerable children and children of key workers. * All non-essential retail, hospitality and leisure is closed. * Everyone should stay at home except for allowed exceptions like work, medical appointments or local exercise. * You can meet one person from another household for local exercise outside if you stay 2 metres apart.
Variant B1.1.7 surged in Kent (South East England) in December 2020 despite "UK Tier 4" lockdown. The transmission increasing by 70% from the initial variant overwhelmed the reduction from reduced social mingling given that rule set.
In England (Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar but different rules because of devolution): * All schools are closed bar vulnerable children and children of key workers. * All non-essential retail, hospitality and leisure is closed. * Everyone should stay at home except for allowed exceptions like work, medical appointments or local exercise. * You can meet one person from another household for local exercise outside if you stay 2 metres apart.
Variant B1.1.7 surged in Kent (South East England) in December 2020 despite "UK Tier 4" lockdown. The transmission increasing by 70% from the initial variant overwhelmed the reduction from reduced social mingling given that rule set.
South East England was in tier 4 lockdown in December but I don't think there was much compliance. This was fairly typical: https://youtu.be/K_tQCW_abjo?t=1993
Part of my current out of my butt theory why cases are going down is all the dummy's have partial herd immunity. The reasoning is simple. If you listen to what people that actually know what they are talking about they say in the US total cases are about 20%.
Lets consider Gallant. Gallant does all the things to stay safe. Is the infection rate among Gallants 20%? Hell no. It's probably a 1/3 that or 6-7%.
Consider Goofus. Goofus is a dummy. He does nothing to protect himself. And hangs out with other Goofus's. Is the infection rate among Goofus's 20%? No, it's probably 3-4 times higher. Or 60-80%.
60-80% means the Goofus's have herd immunity. 6-7% infection rate means Gallants don't.
Lets consider Gallant. Gallant does all the things to stay safe. Is the infection rate among Gallants 20%? Hell no. It's probably a 1/3 that or 6-7%.
Consider Goofus. Goofus is a dummy. He does nothing to protect himself. And hangs out with other Goofus's. Is the infection rate among Goofus's 20%? No, it's probably 3-4 times higher. Or 60-80%.
60-80% means the Goofus's have herd immunity. 6-7% infection rate means Gallants don't.
The "stupid people" demographic reaching saturation and there being a depression in transmission as a result does make a lot of sense just from observed behavior. Then we'd expect the next surge when people start to relax safety measures.
Collections of goofus's are likely important because covid tends to burn out without super spreading events. One can imagine that the collections of dummies that continued to hold large gatherings would have even higher infection rates.
Highlights an issue with a lot of thinking about this. Population profiles aren't homogeneous but people make that assumption when drawing conclusions from simple statistics.
Highlights an issue with a lot of thinking about this. Population profiles aren't homogeneous but people make that assumption when drawing conclusions from simple statistics.
I mean thats a nice theory.
The first broad point: infections are decreasing.
I suspect that this might not always be because we are reaching "herd immunity". It could just be a side effect of stats. Also Vaccines in the USA will target the people who are likely to get tested.
In the UK infections are decreasing because we are in a harsh lockdown. The vaccine show little to no effect _yet_ (unlike israel)
As for the second point: vaccinating those who've not been infected first. Its a great idea, but difficult to do in practice. First as the author points out, we don't have an accurate, quick and cheap t-cell test, so its not actually practicable to figure out who's been infected prior to vaccination.
The author says the infections are dropping in the UK and sights that as the start of natural immunity. I say thats bollocks. Its almost certainly because of the lockdown. looking at the regional numbers, its the only thing explains a coordinated drop over the entire county.
Given that "uk" variant started in the south east, it should have caused peaks spread over time as it moved from city to city. There is no data for that. which suggests it's lockdown thats causing the drop.
The first broad point: infections are decreasing.
I suspect that this might not always be because we are reaching "herd immunity". It could just be a side effect of stats. Also Vaccines in the USA will target the people who are likely to get tested.
In the UK infections are decreasing because we are in a harsh lockdown. The vaccine show little to no effect _yet_ (unlike israel)
As for the second point: vaccinating those who've not been infected first. Its a great idea, but difficult to do in practice. First as the author points out, we don't have an accurate, quick and cheap t-cell test, so its not actually practicable to figure out who's been infected prior to vaccination.
The author says the infections are dropping in the UK and sights that as the start of natural immunity. I say thats bollocks. Its almost certainly because of the lockdown. looking at the regional numbers, its the only thing explains a coordinated drop over the entire county.
Given that "uk" variant started in the south east, it should have caused peaks spread over time as it moved from city to city. There is no data for that. which suggests it's lockdown thats causing the drop.
> “In the UK infections are decreasing because we are in a harsh lockdown. The vaccine show little to no effect _yet_”
UK data does suggest that the vaccination campaign is having an effect: hospital admission rates have been dropping more sharply than infection rates.
No doubt the lockdown has reduced infection rates, but there are also seasonal factors. As the weather warms up, people spend more time outdoors, windows are opened for better ventilation, etc. Covid rates will naturally drop in spring for the same reasons that cold and flu do.
UK data does suggest that the vaccination campaign is having an effect: hospital admission rates have been dropping more sharply than infection rates.
No doubt the lockdown has reduced infection rates, but there are also seasonal factors. As the weather warms up, people spend more time outdoors, windows are opened for better ventilation, etc. Covid rates will naturally drop in spring for the same reasons that cold and flu do.
> UK data does suggest that the vaccination campaign is having an effect: hospital admission rates have been dropping more sharply than infection rates.
https://www.ft.com/content/6d4ff17b-b3a2-4f9a-bb73-84e50ba61...
The data doesn't show that. There is a slim margin that might suggest fatalities are dropping, but not by much.
> As the weather warms up, people spend more time outdoors, windows are opened for better ventilation, etc.
February was the coldest month for a long time in the UK. Epic rain, frost and snow. People have been stuck inside.
The re-opening of schools will cause a rise in infections, the question is, how much.
I expect that the data will be much more clear in april, when about 20 million more people will be inoculated.
https://www.ft.com/content/6d4ff17b-b3a2-4f9a-bb73-84e50ba61...
The data doesn't show that. There is a slim margin that might suggest fatalities are dropping, but not by much.
> As the weather warms up, people spend more time outdoors, windows are opened for better ventilation, etc.
February was the coldest month for a long time in the UK. Epic rain, frost and snow. People have been stuck inside.
The re-opening of schools will cause a rise in infections, the question is, how much.
I expect that the data will be much more clear in april, when about 20 million more people will be inoculated.
> "The data doesn't show that. There is a slim margin that might suggest fatalities are dropping, but not by much."
It takes longer for fatalities to drop because typically, there is several weeks between infection and death, and a further delay before deaths get reported. There is also a delay (weeks) between receiving a vaccine dose and achieving maximum immunity.
Death rates have also dropped fastest in the groups (such as over-80s) who were vaccinated first: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n506
> "February was the coldest month for a long time in the UK. Epic rain, frost and snow. People have been stuck inside."
Yes, we had a couple of weeks of unusually cold weather. But it's much warmer now, and currently, that's forecast to continue.
It takes longer for fatalities to drop because typically, there is several weeks between infection and death, and a further delay before deaths get reported. There is also a delay (weeks) between receiving a vaccine dose and achieving maximum immunity.
Death rates have also dropped fastest in the groups (such as over-80s) who were vaccinated first: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n506
> "February was the coldest month for a long time in the UK. Epic rain, frost and snow. People have been stuck inside."
Yes, we had a couple of weeks of unusually cold weather. But it's much warmer now, and currently, that's forecast to continue.
> dropping more sharply than the infection rate.
I know this might seem petty, but its really important to split out the effect of lockdown vs vaccinations.
If the drop in hospital admissions is down to vaccinations, we'd expect to see a decrease in those in the top 4 groups that have been vaccinated, but a no decrease in other groups (like in Israel)
In the case of the UK when the general background is decreasing infections we should see a marked difference in steepness between both groups.
Now, as you rightly point out, there is normally a 4-6week lag between infection and hospital admission (this has been getting longer with improved at home monitoring). Deaths for the over 70's not so much. They are more likely to palliated, rather than put on a vent.
I am not a vaccine skeptic, I look forward to getting mine and going back into a physical office. I just want to make sure that we prove things with the data we _have_ rather than try and back fill insignificant margins with meanings they can't support. The UK is a beacon of vaccination, I want it to be robust, rather than bluster.
I know this might seem petty, but its really important to split out the effect of lockdown vs vaccinations.
If the drop in hospital admissions is down to vaccinations, we'd expect to see a decrease in those in the top 4 groups that have been vaccinated, but a no decrease in other groups (like in Israel)
In the case of the UK when the general background is decreasing infections we should see a marked difference in steepness between both groups.
Now, as you rightly point out, there is normally a 4-6week lag between infection and hospital admission (this has been getting longer with improved at home monitoring). Deaths for the over 70's not so much. They are more likely to palliated, rather than put on a vent.
I am not a vaccine skeptic, I look forward to getting mine and going back into a physical office. I just want to make sure that we prove things with the data we _have_ rather than try and back fill insignificant margins with meanings they can't support. The UK is a beacon of vaccination, I want it to be robust, rather than bluster.
> In the UK infections are decreasing because we are in a harsh lockdown. The vaccine show little to no effect _yet_ (unlike israel)
Yes, we're only just beginning to see the vaccine effect. Vaccine effect is now clear in hospital admissions, but not so clear in cases: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1363480366397485056?...
https://www.ft.com/content/6d4ff17b-b3a2-4f9a-bb73-84e50ba61...
Yes, we're only just beginning to see the vaccine effect. Vaccine effect is now clear in hospital admissions, but not so clear in cases: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1363480366397485056?...
https://www.ft.com/content/6d4ff17b-b3a2-4f9a-bb73-84e50ba61...
> The first broad point: infections are decreasing.
> I suspect that this might not always be because we are reaching "herd immunity". It could just be a side effect of stats. Also Vaccines in the USA will target the people who are likely to get tested.
I think the decrease of infections is more a regression to a mean -- we were seeing spikes in infection rates over the holidays (and starting a little earlier in the US, because of when we celebrate Thanksgiving) as people decided to meet friends and family indoors and unmasked. Now that the source of the spike is behind us and most cases that were part of that spike have recovered, the weekly caseload is dropping back to where it was in October and early November.
https://images.ctfassets.net/o2ll9t4ee8tq/5lcVQMPbqeYblRqbqe...
(image from the COVID Tracking Project -- https://covidtracking.com/analysis-updates/more-good-news-th...)
> I suspect that this might not always be because we are reaching "herd immunity". It could just be a side effect of stats. Also Vaccines in the USA will target the people who are likely to get tested.
I think the decrease of infections is more a regression to a mean -- we were seeing spikes in infection rates over the holidays (and starting a little earlier in the US, because of when we celebrate Thanksgiving) as people decided to meet friends and family indoors and unmasked. Now that the source of the spike is behind us and most cases that were part of that spike have recovered, the weekly caseload is dropping back to where it was in October and early November.
https://images.ctfassets.net/o2ll9t4ee8tq/5lcVQMPbqeYblRqbqe...
(image from the COVID Tracking Project -- https://covidtracking.com/analysis-updates/more-good-news-th...)
You claim lockdowns are effective because they are effective: if cases are going down without lockdown, it’s because of some unknown outside factor. If cases are going down with lockdown, it must be because of lockdown. Lockdown is both necessary and unnecessary.
That is the beauty of lockdowns. Their success is completely unfalsifiable and all paths on the lockdown flowchart point right back to "more lockdown".
If cases rise, it is because "people didn't take it seriously" and "it wasn't hard enough". Result: Blame the public and lockdown longer & harder. This time, people will behave and it will work!
If cases go down, it must have been because the lockdowns work and so we should continue them otherwise cases will rise and we will be back to square one.
Never question the lockdown. Lockdowns always win! Lockdowns can't fail, they can only be failed. It's Science!
If cases rise, it is because "people didn't take it seriously" and "it wasn't hard enough". Result: Blame the public and lockdown longer & harder. This time, people will behave and it will work!
If cases go down, it must have been because the lockdowns work and so we should continue them otherwise cases will rise and we will be back to square one.
Never question the lockdown. Lockdowns always win! Lockdowns can't fail, they can only be failed. It's Science!
In the UK there is neat correlation between lockdowns and reduced detectable transmission.
We can plot this quite neatly thanks to the fuckups that the british government made.
because the UK is made up of 4 nations with different lockdown rules, you can see the effect the various locksdowns on similar populations. you can see them here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
We can plot this quite neatly thanks to the fuckups that the british government made.
because the UK is made up of 4 nations with different lockdown rules, you can see the effect the various locksdowns on similar populations. you can see them here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
So by April we'll have a new crisis in order to keep the lock-downs rolling.
Cases will start to go down in April because Summer, like in 2020. And every year before that for other virus.
So they will probably take a moment celebrate the vaccine "success".
But after that, something will definitely come up. Extra crazy variants, covid-ebola-bat-soup mutation, climate panic, aliens, China did it on purpose, Russia, the impending economy crash and burn (because of reddit not government lockdowns)... who knows? Stay tuned for the next episode of The Clown Show.
But after that, something will definitely come up. Extra crazy variants, covid-ebola-bat-soup mutation, climate panic, aliens, China did it on purpose, Russia, the impending economy crash and burn (because of reddit not government lockdowns)... who knows? Stay tuned for the next episode of The Clown Show.
I have no idea why big business, who supposedly controls the world, would want lockdowns.
But in any case, we clearly won't have herd immunity by April, so don't embrace conspiracy theories when lockdowns continue.
But in any case, we clearly won't have herd immunity by April, so don't embrace conspiracy theories when lockdowns continue.
Businesses definitely have a huge impact on how democracies function. But COVID has also put ruling parties in many countries in an awkward spot where they are worried about certain vocal parts of the electorate more than the business sector.
The issue is that if ruling parties ease up on restrictions, the opposition will immediately accuse them of "risking lives", "killing grandma", etc. The opposition here might be completely disingenuous, they might be thirsting for an end to restrictions themselves, but they can’t pass up on the opportunity to score points against the ruling party.
In polarized countries, the part of the population that opposes restrictions may even have become a slight majority. But still, as long as the opposition can use any relaxation in restrictions as a means to attack the ruling party and get just a slightly higher percentage of the vote sufficient to unseat the ruling party, the ruling party has little choice but to maintain restrictions.
The issue is that if ruling parties ease up on restrictions, the opposition will immediately accuse them of "risking lives", "killing grandma", etc. The opposition here might be completely disingenuous, they might be thirsting for an end to restrictions themselves, but they can’t pass up on the opportunity to score points against the ruling party.
In polarized countries, the part of the population that opposes restrictions may even have become a slight majority. But still, as long as the opposition can use any relaxation in restrictions as a means to attack the ruling party and get just a slightly higher percentage of the vote sufficient to unseat the ruling party, the ruling party has little choice but to maintain restrictions.
"the ruling party has little choice but to maintain restrictions.
I hope you reevaluate that prediction in 3 months and maybe take that opportunity to reevaluate how you view the world. Because you are make a lot of very strong, falsifiable assertions with very little evidence.
I hope you reevaluate that prediction in 3 months and maybe take that opportunity to reevaluate how you view the world. Because you are make a lot of very strong, falsifiable assertions with very little evidence.
The situation in three months can change with the advent of vaccines and the Israeli study suggesting that they really do reduce transmission. But the scenario I outlined above is precisely how the struggle between ruling parties and the opposition has played out over the last several months in a number of European countries.
There are plenty of ideas that would support those narratives, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've (disclaimer: correctly or incorrectly I make no judgement) dismissed them as conspiracy theories.
Who benefits from that? Are we supposed to believe that some cabal is orchestrating a global conspiracy, spanning every nation and culture, in order to destroy the global economy for some master plan?
Yep, crisis galore.
Keep those bastards on their toes...
Keep those bastards on their toes...
I wonder if Humanity will shut itself out of existence if we start counting every single pathology on that affects Humans on big banners and "social-media-fy" it. I mean, there were 3x more deaths by overdose in SF than by Covid. There are 2x more deaths in India by TB, and a lot more from malnutrition and poverty.
Why are the Americans doing this propaganda op ? Ionnidis' latest paper even points to lockdowns not being particularly helpful across multiple countries.
Why are the Americans doing this propaganda op ? Ionnidis' latest paper even points to lockdowns not being particularly helpful across multiple countries.
Excess deaths are measurably up from this pathology, and we can continue working on those problems too. Unfortunately, there’s little overlap between preventions or treatments for drug addiction and infectious disease.
>Unfortunately, there’s little overlap between preventions or treatments for drug addiction and infectious disease.
The point is that "treating" a pandemic with lockdowns causes increased depression and drug addiction.
The point is that "treating" a pandemic with lockdowns causes increased depression and drug addiction.
Correlation does not equal causation. Maybe the $1400 stimulus checks were the problem, giving addicts a windfall that they then used on drugs. Or maybe it was triggered by peoples relatives passing away from COVID, all alone in the hospital, that caused an uptick in depression and suicide.
You are making a fairly strong claim that the lockdowns (which were barely even enforced) were the cause. Generally, strong claims should be backed up with some evidence.
You are making a fairly strong claim that the lockdowns (which were barely even enforced) were the cause. Generally, strong claims should be backed up with some evidence.
[deleted]
This "pandemic" has given me permanent damage to hips, back and knees, without once having COVID, or ever meeting someone who has had COVID, or meeting someone who knows someone who has had COVID. I only know one person that knows
a person who had COVID, and that person is on the other side of the planet.
I would much rather have had COVID. COVID lasts some weeks, maybe months with long COVID, I have damage for the rest of my life.
I would much rather have had COVID. COVID lasts some weeks, maybe months with long COVID, I have damage for the rest of my life.
That’s fortunate. But if we’re playing the anecdote game: I know two relatives who died from it this year, and a young, healthy, person who had a “mild” case and now has weird blood issues, clotting, etc.
> relatives who died from it this year
Any reason why they did not stay home? Wear masks? Keep social distance? Avoid social gatherings?
Any reason why they did not stay home? Wear masks? Keep social distance? Avoid social gatherings?
> This "pandemic" has given me permanent damage to hips, back and knees,
It sounds far more likely that some poor decisions in how you managed your lifestyle and/or ergonomics during the pandemic led to those conditions.
Nobody forced you to work from your couch/bed/floor or whatever it was that caused your unfortunate condition. Ikea and Office Depot remained open nearly everywhere...
It sounds far more likely that some poor decisions in how you managed your lifestyle and/or ergonomics during the pandemic led to those conditions.
Nobody forced you to work from your couch/bed/floor or whatever it was that caused your unfortunate condition. Ikea and Office Depot remained open nearly everywhere...
That sounds like elitism to me. Who are you to know whether the parent poster could afford extra furniture or if they even had space in their home for it?
> Ikea and Office Depot remained open nearly everywhere...
Ikea chair caused hip damage, I stood for some time which fucked my knees up, then I bought another chair for $ 1000 but damage was already done by IKEA chair, and it did not help much, compensation I had to make for hip caused back injury, then I bought another for $ 1000, still did not help.
No tax deductions, no subsidies, no free cash, nothing.
So I am now unable to work, I am out more than $2000, and I will likely lose my job and be deported now, and I will be in constant pain for hours on the flight back and will be bedridden for the rest of my life.
I would give everything I have to be able to sit at a computer and concentrate for more than 5 minutes again.
Ikea chair caused hip damage, I stood for some time which fucked my knees up, then I bought another chair for $ 1000 but damage was already done by IKEA chair, and it did not help much, compensation I had to make for hip caused back injury, then I bought another for $ 1000, still did not help.
No tax deductions, no subsidies, no free cash, nothing.
So I am now unable to work, I am out more than $2000, and I will likely lose my job and be deported now, and I will be in constant pain for hours on the flight back and will be bedridden for the rest of my life.
I would give everything I have to be able to sit at a computer and concentrate for more than 5 minutes again.
What, the linked study proves the opposite. A massive amount of death in Manaus in 2021, despite 'herd immunity' measured in October 2020. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
> Some medical experts privately agreed with my prediction that there may be very little Covid-19 by April but suggested that I not to talk publicly about herd immunity because people might become complacent and fail to take precautions or might decline the vaccine. But scientists shouldn’t try to manipulate the public by hiding the truth.
Does he hear himself? You can't really liken wild guesses that lead to complacency/death as hiding the truth. It sounds like this guy should really stick to surgery.