The case for herd immunity?

63 posts / 0 new
Last post
Misfit Misfit's picture

People who test positive for antibodies yet never had any symptoms could simply have been false positive test results. Don't just blindly believe based on antibody testing that these people have ever had the virus.

https://www.cochrane.org/CD013652/INFECTN_what-diagnostic-accuracy-antibody-tests-detection-infection-covid-19-virus

Aristotleded24

That's quite possible. It will be interesting to see if any of these people identified as having anti-bodies end up becoming sick, and if so, how many and how serious.

kropotkin1951

The US response is obviously so much better than the Chinese or South Korean. Herd immunity is fine in a society where the view of their neighbours is the devil take the hindmost, or I'm all right Jack so fuck your elders I need a haircut.

Imagine going into a thread on herd immunity and reading gratuitous China slagging. Some things never change with Canadians who believe in exceptionalism but who think that they are progressive. Strange how none of you are calling for air strikes in the US to over throw the corrupt government. Don't we have a duty to protect those people from their government? Trump or Qaddafi who was more harmful?

Aristotleded24

Let's take a look at Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Similar populations, similar demographic composition. One province has more of its population in one place, but both have similar densities up North.

In the spring, Manitoba had very few cases. Saskatchewan had 3 different waves during this time. Now the situation isn't quite reversed to that extent, but Saskatchewan is now posting fewer daily new cases than Manitoba. Is this because Saskatchewan has a level of immunity within their population that Manitoba lacks?

Aristotleded24

The assumption behind many of the public health measures taken is that there was no immunity to covid among the population and that it started spreading among the human population when China first reported this to the WHO in late December. I believe we must re-examine this assumption. I think that this virus was moving among the human population since at least last fall before it was detected. There was a flu death in southern Manitoba last year that the survivors now want to take a second look at. That particular case happened well before any covid cases were confirmed in Canada, let alone Manitoba. Was that covid? Possibly. The World Health Organization has even asked countries to take a second look at last year's flu season. Even so, we are hearing anecdotal reports of people who got really sick with something last fall that they had a hard time shaking. Even Australia had a mild flu season. Was it the public health measures, or were cases that would have been considered flu any other year tested and marked for coronavirus?

If this contention is correct, then that means that there is more immunity to covid within the human population than what we originally believed.

Pondering

 Is this because Saskatchewan has a level of immunity within their population that Manitoba lacks?

No. We already know from other countries that it would take many years and many deaths to achieve herd immunity through letting it run rampant through populations during which time our health care system would collapse. 

You are asking Trump style questions. Would drinking bleach kill Covid-19? 

Absolutely yes. Drinking bleach does kill Covid-19, and the host with it. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:

 Is this because Saskatchewan has a level of immunity within their population that Manitoba lacks?

No. We already know from other countries that it would take many years and many deaths to achieve herd immunity through letting it run rampant through populations during which time our health care system would collapse.

You mean after watching other countries and regions within these countries which were hit with a bad first wave while those countreis and regions which thought they beat covid are now experiencing second waves?

By the way, no one is advocating allowing the virus to spread rapidly through the population indiscriminately. The idea behind herd immunity is that the collective immunity of the population is enough to check the spread of the virus. Obviously allowing the virus to infect people who are more vulnerable is cruel. The practical problem with that is that anyone who dies from coronavirus cannot contribute to the overall pool of immunity within the population. People who survive covid can. So the basic idea is that if the virus moves among people who have a low risk of a bad outcome, their immunity helps keep the virus in check.

Pondering

There are no countries that think they can irradicate it permanently. We expect a second wave and maybe many waves until we can develop a vaccine. 

In Canada government and businesses are desperate to open up.  Schools are part of the test. They are hoping schools can be kept open during this wave and the rest. So far the signs are not looking great.

The path to reopening even though there isn't a vaccine is people physically distancing and wearing masks. if we are careful when in contact with other people we won't need to lockdown. 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Pondering wrote:
There are no countries that think they can irradicate it permanently. We expect a second wave and maybe many waves until we can develop a vaccine.

Wuhan has had no new cases of COVID since May. This shows that COVID can be eradicated in a relatively short time frame.

Canada's Atlantic provinces have eliminated community spread, there hasn't been any in those provinces since June.

These examples prove that COVID can be eliminated. If COVID hasn't been eliminated in a given juristiction, it's because that juristiction's government and health officials have made a deliberate decision not to take the necessary measures to eliminate it.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:
By the way, no one is advocating allowing the virus to spread rapidly through the population indiscriminately. The idea behind herd immunity is that the collective immunity of the population is enough to check the spread of the virus. Obviously allowing the virus to infect people who are more vulnerable is cruel. The practical problem with that is that anyone who dies from coronavirus cannot contribute to the overall pool of immunity within the population. People who survive covid can. So the basic idea is that if the virus moves among people who have a low risk of a bad outcome, their immunity helps keep the virus in check.

According to Jimmy Dore there was a study that showed that even people who had mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID wound up with biomarkers on their heart that are indicative of heart damage similar to that caused by heart attacks and strokes. That tells me that COVID is not something that desirable for anyone to get.

Which indicates to me that we ought to have done whatever it takes to reduce the number of COVID cases to the lowest level possible -- while ensuring that people don't starve and that emergency services continue to operate -- until COVID is elimiated.

Pondering

Wuhan locked people in their homes and buildings with guards and had drones going around telling people to go home. People needed written permission to be on the street. The Atlantic provinces sealed themselves off first from each other followed by bubbles. They still don't want anyone from Quebec. 

Are you advocating we go into a hard lockdown like Wuhan? 

I agree with travel restrictions. I don't think Canadians would tolerate a Wuhan style lockdown.

New Zealand thought they had it eradicated then they got a case they couldn't explain. 

Aristotleded24

Left Turn wrote:
Pondering wrote:
There are no countries that think they can irradicate it permanently. We expect a second wave and maybe many waves until we can develop a vaccine.

Wuhan has had no new cases of COVID since May. This shows that COVID can be eradicated in a relatively short time frame.

Canada's Atlantic provinces have eliminated community spread, there hasn't been any in those provinces since June.

These examples prove that COVID can be eliminated. If COVID hasn't been eliminated in a given juristiction, it's because that juristiction's government and health officials have made a deliberate decision not to take the necessary measures to eliminate it.

What happened in Wuhan was an extreme example. You have to essentially take everyone and lock them in their houses until the virus is gone, and I don't think that there is the stomach for that in the rest of the world.Even with the drastic measures taken in Wuhan, the virus managed to escape and spread around the world. It's true that some regions, like the Atlantic provinces, might escape the pandemic thanks to geography, leadership and luck, but as long as the pandemic rages, they are always vulnerable to the virus coming in. Everyone pretty much needs to be on board for an elimination strategy, however some countires (for example Sweden) have explicitly repudiated that approach. So say you managed to beat covid within your borders. What then? What if you have a large sector of your economy that is dependent on tourism and travel?

Left Turn wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
By the way, no one is advocating allowing the virus to spread rapidly through the population indiscriminately. The idea behind herd immunity is that the collective immunity of the population is enough to check the spread of the virus. Obviously allowing the virus to infect people who are more vulnerable is cruel. The practical problem with that is that anyone who dies from coronavirus cannot contribute to the overall pool of immunity within the population. People who survive covid can. So the basic idea is that if the virus moves among people who have a low risk of a bad outcome, their immunity helps keep the virus in check.

According to Jimmy Dore there was a study that showed that even people who had mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID wound up with biomarkers on their heart that are indicative of heart damage similar to that caused by heart attacks and strokes. That tells me that COVID is not something that desirable for anyone to get.

I'd like to read this study myself, because I have questions that might be answered by looking at it. They found biomarkers of damage to the heart and the brain. Did that co-incide with impaired function of both organs? We also know that covid spreads more easily among low-income communities of colour. People who live in poverty are generally less healthy to begin with. Did the study account for that?

Jimmy Dore has done great work exposing the corruption and hypocrisy in the Democratic Party (although his video mocking Biden's dementia was in bad taste) but he has been as eager to use fear of covid for clicks and views as anybody else.

Pages