2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)

[tstorm823]

You're all bad at the word "mostly". Yes, Texas counts as rural or remote. It has plenty of city, but those cities aren't interconnected like New York, philly, Boston, Baltimore, DC, etc. The northeast is all connected. Like Europe is connected. Texas has nature separating its populations.

They are all places that saw downward trends, loosened behavioural restrictions, and then saw upward trends.

No, they aren't. They are places that didn't see downward trends, loosened restrictions, and then saw upward trends. None of those states ever hit a consistent downslope, because they never had the spike happen to be on the other side, and then they reopened against cdc recommendations.

 

[Baffle]

While the Us is now on the way to 60k cases per day, it seems the UK has gotten it under control by now as well.

Hurrah! To the pub!

Ah, shit!

 

[Silvanus]

It's feasible that people with antibodies to some coronaviruses may also have some level of resistance immunity to covid-19.

Sure, feasible, though deeply uncertain. But 80% of the population? Immune to the extent that they're providing protection for society at large from outbreaks? There's not a single reason to think so.

No, they aren't. They are places that didn't see downward trends, loosened restrictions, and then saw upward trends. None of those states ever hit a consistent downslope, because they never had the spike happen to be on the other side, and then they reopened against cdc recommendations.

They inarguably did see downward trends in case numbers during the lockdown; it's near-inevitable after initial surges. If you think those trends aren't consistent enough to qualify, then you're starting to set some very restrictive (and convenient) specifications.

But the point is that upward trends would be near-impossible under a situation that scientists would describe as "herd immunity". The very concept is used to describe a situation in which outbreaks are highly unlikely, regardless of behavioural restrictions in place. It's a situation that's pretty rarely actually achieved in epidemics, and almost never without mass vaccination.

Not a single expert in the field has used it to describe our current situation, and nor would they: the only experts who've even floated it as a potential future approach (such as Patrick Vallance in the UK or Anders Tegnell in Sweden) have swiftly rowed back, and never said we were ever there.

 

[tstorm823]

Sure, feasible, though deeply uncertain. But 80% of the population? Immune to the extent that they're providing protection for society at large from outbreaks? There's not a single reason to think so.

They inarguably did see downward trends in case numbers during the lockdown; it's near-inevitable after initial surges. If you think those trends aren't consistent enough to qualify, then you're starting to set some very restrictive (and convenient) specifications.

But the point is that upward trends would be near-impossible under a situation that scientists would describe as "herd immunity". The very concept is used to describe a situation in which outbreaks are highly unlikely, regardless of behavioural restrictions in place. It's a situation that's pretty rarely actually achieved in epidemics, and almost never without mass vaccination.

Not a single expert in the field has used it to describe our current situation, and nor would they: the only experts who've even floated it as a potential future approach (such as Patrick Vallance in the UK or Anders Tegnell in Sweden) have swiftly rowed back, and never said we were ever there.

And those people are dumber than me.

I'm not sure where you see those places inarguably having downward trends. Find me a graph of cases of any of those places and point a big red arrow at the downward trend, or concede the point.

 

[Silvanus]

And those people are dumber than me.

I get that this is snark. Nevertheless, to believe we already have herd immunity is to believe the world's scientific community is wrong, and that some random forumite with no formal expertise has seen what they cannot. Embrace it!

I'm always impressed by how many experts there are on Reddit and Twitter and various forums, coming out with insights no peer-reviewed journal has considered.

I'm not sure where you see those places inarguably having downward trends. Find me a graph of cases of any of those places and point a big red arrow at the downward trend, or concede the point.

The data's readily available here; you can see that every state in the green under "3 weeks ago" was experiencing between a 50% and a 100% reduction in average daily new cases compared to the week before. As of this week, each one is back on the increase.

Though the preceding downward trend isn't even necessary to prove the point. Any significant upward trend should be near-impossible with herd immunity.

 

[Buyetyen]

I'm always impressed by how many experts there are on Reddit and Twitter and various forums, coming out with insights no peer-reviewed journal has considered.

Funny how they all act exactly like people who are deeply insecure in their own intelligence. You think there's a connection there?

 

[Saint of M]

California is under lockdown again, anyone surprised?

 

[Agema]

You're all bad at the word "mostly". Yes, Texas counts as rural or remote. It has plenty of city, but those cities aren't interconnected like New York, philly, Boston, Baltimore, DC, etc. The northeast is all connected. Like Europe is connected. Texas has nature separating its populations.

This is unconvincing.

I find it hard to believe that Texas is that much less connected than, say, Spain. Depending on what we classify as rural, less than 20% of the population of Texas is rural, typical with most of the developed world. There's no particularly obvious reason why people will go between Houston, Dallas, San Antonio etc. that much less than they will between Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia - also separated by large stetches of "nature"

Funny how they all act exactly like people who are deeply insecure in their own intelligence. You think there's a connection there?

I'm not sure of that. I think it's insecurity, but it's more about creating a comforting illusion of control than intelligence.

I think of Steve Jobs, who effectively helped kill himself by trying to deal with cancer using bullshit non-therapies. I bet he knew and was confident in his intelligence. But all that drive, accomplishment and talent is rendered impotent in the face of such an illness. And powerless is how people feel when faced with threat from a force of nature against which all their abilities can muster precisely zero, their fate now dependent on other people and dumb luck.

If you pretend you know, that you can stuff your face with herbal remedies, vitamins and hydroxychloroquine, that you can macho tough it out with no safety measures at all, I think that's about people trying to tell themselves and others that they are unafraid, powerful and in control. The idea that you can predict what will occur, how the disease will spread, how many will die, who's at risk and why, all of that acts to give a sense of security in a uncertain world. Because potentially the most uncomfortable thing for many, even most, people is uncertainty and powerlessness.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

California is under lockdown again, anyone surprised?

When did it leave lockdown?

 

[tstorm823]

The data's readily available here; you can see that every state in the green under "3 weeks ago" was experiencing between a 50% and a 100% reduction in average daily new cases compared to the week before. As of this week, each one is back on the increase.

Big red arrow on graph is still what I am looking for.

Though the preceding downward trend isn't even necessary to prove the point. Any significant upward trend should be near-impossible with herd immunity.

It is 100% necessary. My entire argument is that the infection rate drops in hard hit places due primarily to acquired immunity. That obviously doesn't apply to places that haven't been hard hit and haven't dropped the infection rate.

 

[Agema]

It is 100% necessary. My entire argument is that the infection rate drops in hard hit places due primarily to acquired immunity.

I suspect what no-one really gets is why you think 10-20% immune has more of an effect than anti-infection measures - masks, improved hygiene and other changed behaviours to reduce risk.

 

[tstorm823]

I suspect what no-one really gets is why you think 10-20% immune has more of an effect than anti-infection measures - masks, improved hygiene and other changed behaviours to reduce risk.

It's not as though I'm arguing those things are inherently ineffective or the level of immunity is always relevant. It's just that the statistics for this virus support it. Madrid reopened as much as California did, only California spiked up, the difference is the severity of epidemic previously experienced. That's evidence of acquired immunity resisting outbreaks. Do people not understand that argument?

 

[Silvanus]

Big red arrow on graph is still what I am looking for.

Do you have Microsoft Paint installed? The numbers are there. You can make one yourself.

And, as a matter of fact, that site also has graphs with big red arrows. You can see the arrow for the United States as a whole rise as the pandemic first surges, taper off to a slower rise through late April and May, and then rise more steeply again.

It is 100% necessary. My entire argument is that the infection rate drops in hard hit places due primarily to acquired immunity. That obviously doesn't apply to places that haven't been hard hit and haven't dropped the infection rate.

Your entire argument has, until now, rested on the scientific concept of "herd immunity", which has a distinct and specific meaning separate from "acquired immunity", and doesn't require a place to be an "epicentre" or "hard-hit".

If you want to drop that line of argument, and talk instead about the effect of small levels of acquired immunity on infection rates, go right ahead. It's obvious that acquired immunity at any level will have some resisting impact on infection rate, and it's obvious that antibody levels will usually be higher in harder-hit areas after a while. That doesn't constitute herd immunity.

 

[Agema]

...the difference is the severity of epidemic previously experienced...

That's one of the potential differences. What about all the others, and the difference they may make?

For instance, Madrid was hit heavily, and California was not. What if that means Madrilenians are a lot more careful than Californians about infection, put in more preventative measures? What if Madrid was more successful at driving down infection rates, such that the number of infections upon re-opening was much lower than California? And so on.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

It's not as though I'm arguing those things are inherently ineffective or the level of immunity is always relevant. It's just that the statistics for this virus support it. Madrid reopened as much as California did, only California spiked up, the difference is the severity of epidemic previously experienced. That's evidence of acquired immunity resisting outbreaks. Do people not understand that argument?

Huh? When bars were re-opening in California, Madrid and Barcelona were just entering their Phase 2.

 

[Buyetyen]

Herd immunity: because it worked so well with the Black Death and the epidemics that wiped out 90% of the indigenous population of the Americas.

 

[tstorm823]

Do you have Microsoft Paint installed? The numbers are there. You can make one yourself.

Fine, I'll do it you lazy bum. All the states you explicitly mentioned with big red arrows pointed at the exactly never that they experienced a sustained decrease in cases.

Your entire argument has, until now, rested on the scientific concept of "herd immunity", which has a distinct and specific meaning separate from "acquired immunity", and doesn't require a place to be an "epicentre" or "hard-hit".

Wat? You're trying to be pedantic on the phrase "herd immunity", but you're throwing out the entire meaning of the phrase. Me telling you that a certain portion of a population needs to acquire immunity in order for herd immunity to be established... that's just the definition of the phrase. Why do you find it questionable to suggest that a place that had a local epidemic of covid-19 would resist outbreaks after where a place that largely avoided the virus does not? You're not going to win an argument just fighting about the terminology instead of the concepts behind them, but you're especially not going to win if you've lost sight of those meaning altogether.

If you want to drop that line of argument, and talk instead about the effect of small levels of acquired immunity on infection rates, go right ahead. It's obvious that acquired immunity at any level will have some resisting impact on infection rate, and it's obvious that antibody levels will usually be higher in harder-hit areas after a while. That doesn't constitute herd immunity.

Herd immunity is the condition where the reproductive rate of the virus is less than or equal to 1 under normal conditions, specifically because a threshold of people are immune. I'm claiming that plenty of places have already established that condition. Obviously I'm not all knowing, I don't know if there's like a specific building in New York where people have locked themselves in the whole time or something like that and a small outbreak is still possible, but do not expect more major outbreaks of the virus in NYC ever. That's what I'm saying. If you want me to stop describing less impacted places as "approaching herd immunity" because you think it's the wrong phrasing, you're going to have to first admit that you understand and agree with what I'm saying.

That's one of the potential differences. What about all the others, and the difference they may make?

For instance, Madrid was hit heavily, and California was not. What if that means Madrilenians are a lot more careful than Californians about infection, put in more preventative measures? What if Madrid was more successful at driving down infection rates, such that the number of infections upon re-opening was much lower than California? And so on.

If people in places like Spain were better at driving down the virus than Californians, why did they experience giant spikes while California effectively held the growth rate almost flat for months? The obvious answer is that they weren't better.

Herd immunity: because it worked so well with the Black Death and the epidemics that wiped out 90% of the indigenous population of the Americas.

Covid-19 isn't Black Death or Smallpox. One of it's most significant characteristics as far as how it's spreading is that it doesn't kill people horrifically and can spread around undetected.

 

[Saint of M]

When did it leave lockdown?

Huh? When bars were re-opening in California, Madrid and Barcelona were just entering their Phase 2.

Alot of stuff started doing soft reopens in late may early June, Including Bars and Restaurants. A few none essentials came back as well. However due to another spike in the virus cases in several counties the Shelter In Place was back in force, and Masks were no Longer an option. Some areas stronger than others, say compare the Central vally rather lax at the time vs the Bay Area being Stringent.

Herd immunity: because it worked so well with the Black Death and the epidemics that wiped out 90% of the indigenous population of the Americas.

Black Death times mixing potions with your own waste because it was part of your body was seen as a cure for the disease. Also the disease was seemingly so random that it changed reforms in religion and society and culture were allowed to thrive enough for the renaissance to be a thing. Popper and King, Sinner and Saint were all affected. You could have one town killed off to the last man, woman, child, and rat but their neighboring village wouldn't even have the one.

Herd Immunity means if enough people are immune to a disease, it will minimize its overall effect. Its why we get flu shots, and why so many immunization shots are required for students periodically.

Its not perfect, its not a silver bullet. It was never advertised as such. I still got flu bugs even with the flu shot because it was never made to stop you from having it: Just make its duration less so it suck as much as it should.

 

[Buyetyen]

Black Death times mixing potions with your own waste because it was part of your body was seen as a cure for the disease. Also the disease was seemingly so random that it changed reforms in religion and society and culture were allowed to thrive enough for the renaissance to be a thing. Popper and King, Sinner and Saint were all affected. You could have one town killed off to the last man, woman, child, and rat but their neighboring village wouldn't even have the one.

Herd Immunity means if enough people are immune to a disease, it will minimize its overall effect. Its why we get flu shots, and why so many immunization shots are required for students periodically.

Its not perfect, its not a silver bullet. It was never advertised as such. I still got flu bugs even with the flu shot because it was never made to stop you from having it: Just make its duration less so it suck as much as it should.

To be clear, I'm being facetious. Though I would hope that we can agree that herd immunity has a specific definition in medicine and epidemiology and that we should probably use that one. The idea of just letting the disease run its course and wait for herd-immunity-but-not-really to kick in as a preferable alternative to scientifically proven and recommended safety measures until a vaccine can be mass-produced and actual herd immunity becomes viable is about as clear an example of Dunning-Kruger as your going to get outside of Trump suggesting with a straight face that people inject disinfectant into their lungs to fight coronavirus.

I totally agree with you and the other rational people in this thread that medical science has come a long way since the last pandemic. It's not a lack of knowledge that's fucking us up, it's a lack of leadership and a segment of the population who are losing the ability to tell what is real.

 

[Saint of M]

To be clear, I'm being facetious. Though I would hope that we can agree that herd immunity has a specific definition in medicine and epidemiology and that we should probably use that one. The idea of just letting the disease run its course and wait for herd-immunity-but-not-really to kick in as a preferable alternative to scientifically proven and recommended safety measures until a vaccine can be mass-produced and actual herd immunity becomes viable is about as clear an example of Dunning-Kruger as your going to get outside of Trump suggesting with a straight face that people inject disinfectant into their lungs to fight coronavirus.

I totally agree with you and the other rational people in this thread that medical science has come a long way since the last pandemic. It's not a lack of knowledge that's fucking us up, it's a lack of leadership and a segment of the population who are losing the ability to tell what is real.

Maybe not so much not enough knowledge as much as the wrong kind. Misinformation, and the anti vaxer types keep spreading their fecal matter assuming something beautiful will grow. Only when they get infected do they sing a different tune, and a major reason why the Bible Belt was hit hard. Its a whole new flavor of "Snake Handlers." I still know people that think vaccinations cause autism.

As for the vaccine, when this whole mess first hit the point of "Oh, this could be a problem," it was estimated to take a year or maybe a year and a half before we had something viable for the public. By that time the San Diego Comic Con may have to either cancel again, or the guys in the Hazmat suits from Monster's inc will be the most popular Cosplay