California no longer under lockdown - people freak out

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Significantly less effective is, again, some more hyperbole. We currently have goose eggs (aka zeroes) across the board for people who've gotten the vaccine and gotten severe enough covid to need to be hospitalized or have died. The vaccines will work well enough against the new strains. It's like the doctors in the video I posted getting mad at people that are like "well, the vaccines aren't 100% effective" and they're like "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT?" There's never going to be 100% safety. The vaccines will make covid less deadly than the flu, you're OK with the risk from the flu, right?
OK, stop, no. You're conflating two issues here: the minuscule risk of contracting a disease after being vaccinated against it (which is the subject of that video you posted), and the reduced efficacy of vaccines against different strains.

These are plainly very different issues. I'm talking specifically about the latter. On that, "significantly less effective" is not hyperbole.

The point is that the arrival of a vaccine does not mean that we can just return to normality, precautions-be-damned.


You're basing public policy on worst case scenarios and maybes that have very small chances of actually happening. I'm not providing best case scenarios, I'm providing LIKELY case scenarios.

The newer strains won't be resistant, it's not the most optimistic, it's the norm. You think there isn't different strains of all the other viruses we have vaccines for? How'd we get all those viruses down to basically nil if new strains will usually be resistant to vaccines?
See above: we already have evidence that they are resistant. This isn't "worst-case"; this is knowledge that this is how viruses very frequently work, including human coronaviruses and other respiratory tract viruses.

What you believe is the norm-- that a vaccine is introduced and then just provides protection forever-- is not accurate. This is why we take additional iterative vaccines. This is why we take a new influenza shot every year; this is why even if you're vaccinated against Tetanus, it's still recommended to go to the doctor and have a new Tetanus jab if you get cut on a rusty nail.

Antibodies aren't the the only thing that protects you against reinfection. There's quite a decent percentage of people that fight off covid and don't even produce antibodies and the acquire just as good T-cell memory response as those that had produce antibodies.

"More than 150 years ago, a natural experiment on a rocky, volcanic archipelago between Scandinavia and Iceland proved that an infection can trigger lifelong immunologic memory. Measles raced through residents of the Faroe Islands in 1781. The disease did not reappear on the isolated island group for 65 years, when a visitor brought it back. A thorough study found that no one alive during the first outbreak became ill again. Their elderly immune systems remembered and fought off the virus."

You think all those people still had measles antibodies? You think the version of measles that was reintroduced to the island was the same strain of measles 65 years later? If you needed antibodies present to fight infections, this kind of stuff wouldn't happen. If different strains couldn't be fought with past memory immunity, this kind of stuff wouldn't happen. The T-cells prompt the B-cells to produce more antibodies when there's a reinfection.
"This kind of stuff wouldn't happen"? Do you seriously believe that because some people in this instance were protected from Measles primarily by T-cells, therefore we can just assume that T-cells alone provide equal protection against all viruses?

Once again, you're willing to take single isolated examples, and then consider them the last word on the entire field of virology. You're happy to assume that Covid-19 definitely won't mutate into a vaccine-resistant strain because there's no chance it'll be anything like influenza... and at the same time you're happy to assume that T-cells will provide decades and decades of complete protection, because they did against Measles once before.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
OK, stop, no.

These are plainly very different issues. I'm talking specifically about the latter. On that, "significantly less effective" is not hyperbole.
OK, stop, no.

You linked an article that says one of the two vaccines works just fine against that strain, and the other vaccine was demonstrated to be less effective at preventing mild cases among specifically low-risk groups. And that's your evidence that you aren't exaggerating? Just concede to Phoenix, the rest of you have lost this arguement like 15 times over, and are only persisting because you feel you have the moral high ground.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
You linked an article that says one of the two vaccines works just fine against that strain, and the other vaccine was demonstrated to be less effective at preventing mild cases among specifically low-risk groups. And that's your evidence that you aren't exaggerating? Just concede to Phoenix, the rest of you have lost this arguement like 15 times over, and are only persisting because you feel you have the moral high ground.
Do you remember what the actual point being made was? It wasn't that the vaccines definitely don't protect against mutated strains. It's that we cannot assume that they do, and use that assumption to open everything up again.

And yes, tentative evidence such as that study is highly relevant on that point. We don't have a huge body of research on the efficacy of vaccines on the newer strains; we have to use what evidence we have to form public policy. What has Phoenix provided? Literally the only thing he's brought forward which even speaks to that is a 150-year-old case study concerning Measles, and his own shallow interpretation of natural selection. I've pointed to the seasonal mutating nature of Influenza, as well as the (tentative) study above on Covid-19, simply to make the point that we cannot assume we're protected from all strains.

((On a side-note, it didn't go unnoticed that you substituted "mild" for "mild to moderate" in your ridiculous little summary there)).
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
You linked an article that says one of the two vaccines works just fine against that strain, and the other vaccine was demonstrated to be less effective at preventing mild cases among specifically low-risk groups. And that's your evidence that you aren't exaggerating? Just concede to Phoenix, the rest of you have lost this arguement like 15 times over, and are only persisting because you feel you have the moral high ground.
I can quite assure you, I'm mostly arguing because Phoenix is butchering scientific evidence. I don't think his conclusions are necessarily wrong, but he's definitely supporting them weakly.

Remember when you were telling us we'd have herd immunity when about 20% had contracted the covid-19 based on some study? Ah, how long ago that seems. I just bring that up as a reminder of undue confidence in scientific studies that might have some more personal weight to aid your reflection.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
Literally the only thing he's brought forward which even speaks to that is a 150-year-old case study concerning Measles.
Am I not supposed to have read dozens of pages over multiple threads to see how inaccurate this claim is? Phoenix has been providing different evidence from a multitude of sources for months. And I guarantee, if this argument continues, you're going to continue to get the same deluge of information
Remember when you were telling us we'd have herd immunity when about 20% had contracted the covid-19 based on some study? Ah, how long ago that seems. I just bring that up as a reminder of undue confidence in scientific studies that might have some more personal weight to aid your reflection.
a) That wasn't based on any study, that was based entirely on publicly available data and my back of the envelope math.
b) It was never 20% contracted, because the calculation was how many people would have to get sick. IIRC, which I probably do, my claim was that only 20% of people were susceptible to meaningful illness, and we'd drive R0 below 1 by the time half of them contracted the virus. In a random situation, that would mean half of everyone would be exposed, just most would brush it off without noticing. This was in contrast to projections that were calculating potential mortality based on 2/3 of the population getting sick.
c) We've vaccinated something like 10% of people, targeting the highest risk individuals, and R0 is way under 1 already. At least in my state, we're under 1/3rd the rate of new cases since the vaccinations started. I understand there are still some mitigation efforts in place, but that doesn't happen if you need 60%+ immunity to achieve herd immunity.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Am I not supposed to have read dozens of pages over multiple threads to see how inaccurate this claim is? Phoenix has been providing different evidence from a multitude of sources for months. And I guarantee, if this argument continues, you're going to continue to get the same deluge of information
Phoenix has made a succession of claims, often appealing vaguely to "studies" without providing them, or just basing them on his own personal understanding of natural selection. I suppose that's technically a "deluge of information"...

I'm talking quite specifically about the claim that immunity to Covid-19 lasts for many, many years. That debate hasn't even been going on for months on this forum.

IIRC, which I probably do, my claim was that only 20% of people were susceptible to meaningful illness, and we'd drive R0 below 1 by the time half of them contracted the virus.
You do not recall correctly. You repeatedly claimed that we didn't need anywhere near even half of the population immune in order to achieve "herd immunity", running counter to all medical consensus. If I remember correctly, it was based on conflating the general concept of broader levels of immunity lowering transmission, and the specific concept of herd immunity.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
Phoenix has made a succession of claims, often appealing vaguely to "studies" without providing them, or just basing them on his own personal understanding of natural selection. I suppose that's technically a "deluge of information"...

I'm talking quite specifically about the claim that immunity to Covid-19 lasts for many, many years. That debate hasn't even been going on for months on this forum.
Could you be more condescending?

You do not recall correctly. You repeatedly claimed that we didn't need anywhere near even half of the population immune in order to achieve "herd immunity", running counter to all medical consensus. If I remember correctly, it was based on conflating the general concept of broader levels of immunity lowering transmission, and the specific concept of herd immunity.
We don't need near even half the population in order to achieve herd immunity. We don't, and the evidence is it's happening right now. The primary spreaders are those with significant symptoms. We have targeted the riskiest groups with vaccines, and it has dropped the replication rate dramatically without only a fraction vaccinated.

You are the one misunderstanding the concept of herd immunity.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Could you be more condescending?
This is rich. Your first post addressing me in this exchange was more condescending than anything I've posted.

We don't need near even half the population in order to achieve herd immunity. We don't, and the evidence is it's happening right now. The primary spreaders are those with significant symptoms. We have targeted the riskiest groups with vaccines, and it has dropped the replication rate dramatically without only a fraction vaccinated.
Right, you're still just conflating greater rates of immunity with the concept of herd immunity, then. Carry on; if you're just not going to use the term in the sense that it's understood by scientists & practitioners, then there's nothing more I can really say.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
We don't need near even half the population in order to achieve herd immunity. We don't, and the evidence is it's happening right now. The primary spreaders are those with significant symptoms. We have targeted the riskiest groups with vaccines, and it has dropped the replication rate dramatically without only a fraction vaccinated.

You are the one misunderstanding the concept of herd immunity.
That's not only wrong, but indicates you don't understand the concept of what vaccination does.

Herd immunity is generally held to be the point where an infection effectively cannot spread because so many people have immunity. Daily infections are indeed decreasing, but this is also with extensive anti-infection measures still in place, so what's due to the smaller pool of people vulnerable to infection and what's due to anti-infection measures is unclear. Thus it is not possible to say that herd immunity has been achieved.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
Herd immunity is generally held to be the point where an infection effectively cannot spread because so many people have immunity.
No, nonononono.

" resistance to the spread of an infectious disease within a population that is based on pre-existing immunity of a high proportion of individuals as a result of previous infection or vaccination. " OED

To be more numerically precise, its the point where few enough people are susceptible that each person who gets infected spreads it to less than one addition person. Because when people spread it to more than one person, it grows exponentially, and you get outbreaks or epidemics. If each person spreads to less that one other person, you don't have outbreaks, and that lack of outbreak is the protection offered to those who are not immune.

It has nothing to do with being unable to spread, herd immunity is not eradication, it's just resistance enough to spread to avoid exponential growth.

Daily infections are indeed decreasing, but this is also with extensive anti-infection measures still in place, so what's due to the smaller pool of people vulnerable to infection and what's due to anti-infection measures is unclear. Thus it is not possible to say that herd immunity has been achieved.
This is a fair point, and I gladly concede that even most of a year later my theories remain conjecture, but we've got dropping infection rates during the peak of cold and flu season while many places are taking down social distancing measures. That's a very good sign, and at current rate, we'll probably know if I'm right in not to much longer.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
To be more numerically precise, its the point where few enough people are susceptible that each person who gets infected spreads it to less than one addition person. Because when people spread it to more than one person, it grows exponentially, and you get outbreaks or epidemics. If each person spreads to less that one other person, you don't have outbreaks, and that lack of outbreak is the protection offered to those who are not immune.

It has nothing to do with being unable to spread, herd immunity is not eradication, it's just resistance enough to spread to avoid exponential growth.
This is just a description of the basic reproduction rate being below 1. Which plainly isn't the same thing.

This simply isn't how the term is used and understood. I'm sorry, but you've quite straightforwardly been using it wrong.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
This is just a description of the basic reproduction rate being below 1. Which plainly isn't the same thing.

This simply isn't how the term is used and understood. I'm sorry, but you've quite straightforwardly been using it wrong.

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

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118

"The herd immunity threshold is the proportion of a population that need to be immune in order for an infectious disease to become stable in that community. If this is reached, for example through immunisation, then each case leads to a single new case (R=1) and the infection will become stable within the population."
Yes. The threshold is where the R rate is one, but the continued spread of disease and immunity after threshold necessarily should reduce the R rate below one. Herd immunity is therefore a state where outbreaks should die out of their own accord with no other intervention and provide indirect protection of non-immune individuals.

Thus I think this is just arguing at cross purposes: nobody's wrong, they're just describing the same thing in different ways, such as technical representation against practical consequence.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
Yes. The threshold is where the R rate is one, but the continued spread of disease and immunity after threshold necessarily should reduce the R rate below one. Herd immunity is therefore a state where outbreaks should die out of their own accord with no other intervention and provide indirect protection of non-immune individuals.

Thus I think this is just arguing at cross purposes: nobody's wrong, they're just describing the same thing in different ways, such as technical representation against practical consequence.
I appreciate your comment, and I don't think Silvanus's concept of herd immunity (whatever it actually is) is necessarily less valid, but somebody has to be wrong in a sense. Either I'm wrong, or the sentence " I'm sorry, but you've quite straightforwardly been using it wrong." is wrong. It's logically unavoidable at this moment that someone here is wrong.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
It's logically unavoidable at this moment that someone here is wrong.
Partially wrong: no need to be glass half empty.

Or should that be glass empty rather than half empty?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
"The herd immunity threshold is the proportion of a population that need to be immune in order for an infectious disease to become stable in that community. If this is reached, for example through immunisation, then each case leads to a single new case (R=1) and the infection will become stable within the population."
The point has kind of been missed here, or maybe I didn't explain it in my rush to be snarky.

The R can be below 1 for numerous different reasons. It could be brought about by herd immunity, or it could be brought about by widespread societal precautions (such as lockdowns), or even just because the virus itself isn't usually infectious enough to reach an R >1 (like MERS). Thus you can see how the R can be below 1 without herd immunity.

It was during the first lockdown, for instance. The R dropped below 1 while everybody was stuck inside. Then we could go out again... and it rose above 1 again. Clearly we did not have herd immunity, because it spiked to high heaven.

So you cannot simply look at the R, see it's below 1, and conclude we have herd immunity. They're not interchangeable. Herd immunity would lead to the R resting below 1 even in the absence of widespread societal protections. Which scientists pretty much universally agree needs an immunity proportion of ~60% at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
So you cannot simply look at the R, see it's below 1, and conclude we have herd immunity. They're not interchangeable. Herd immunity would lead to the R resting below 1 even in the absence of widespread societal protections. Which scientists pretty much universally agree needs an immunity proportion of ~60% at least.
And that's exactly what I'm speculating on: that susceptibility and infectiousness are so uneven between population groups that acquired immunity in 10-20% of the most at risk will be sufficient to drive R below 1 even in the absence of social distancing. I understand, there is no proof of this (yet), but my back of envelope statistics guessing that were based on the Diamond Princess, where they didn't really have the luxury of preventative measures.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
And that's exactly what I'm speculating on: that susceptibility and infectiousness are so uneven between population groups that acquired immunity in 10-20% of the most at risk will be sufficient to drive R below 1 even in the absence of social distancing. I understand, there is no proof of this (yet), but my back of envelope statistics guessing that were based on the Diamond Princess, where they didn't really have the luxury of preventative measures.
OK, but surely you can see that one ship is a statistically-insignificant sample, and nowhere near the burden of evidence we would need to conclude that the rate of immunity required for this virus is less than a third of the generally medically-accepted rate.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
And that's exactly what I'm speculating on: that susceptibility and infectiousness are so uneven between population groups that acquired immunity in 10-20% of the most at risk will be sufficient to drive R below 1 even in the absence of social distancing.
Can I just clarify: I presume when you say "most at risk", you mean of getting infected rather than suffering serious symptoms?

The point here being that the vast majority of most of at risk in the former sense would already have been infected by the middle of last year.