Coronovirus III

[nonobaddog]

Unless there is a vaccine or permanent isolation of non-infected individuals, Chip is correct. The number of individuals who are exposed to the virus will, eventually, be the same no matter what temporary measures are employed. Time is the only variable.

Do you really believe that? That there is only one variable. That would be an extremely rare case.

 

[Ingomike]

Wow, really?!?



It always was, and it was explained to be at the time that "flatten the curve" became the policy focus.

It is also obvious. So-called "herd immunity" only develops once the virus spreads enough for said herd immunity to be built up. That only happens through spread of viral infection. Mortality is a function of infection. If you get infected, you have the same risk of dying, regardless of how quickly the virus is spreading when you get infected. Even if you "flatten the curve" until the virus spreads to no more than one person at a time, the area under the curve will be the same.

I learned on Facebook that if we all just stay home, the virus will magically disappear some day and no one will ever die of anything again.

Hough, I wish that was a joke, but, the truth is, the media has, at the minimum, led the sheeple to believe this. They really believe they are bunkering to not get it ever...

 

[T.Lex]

[/B]
Do you really believe that? That there is only one variable. That would be an extremely rare case.

He's right. Alpo, that is.

The number of individuals who will be exposed is finite (basically). Over time, every American will be exposed to it.

Not everyone will develop an infection, and a relatively small percentage will need hospitalized or die from it.

To put it another way, instead of everyone jumping in the virus exposure pool at the same time, we're trying to form lines for how many people will be in that pool at any given time. Eventually, everyone will get dunked (or almost everyone).

 

[Ziggidy]

I wonder how many others are asymptomatic / pre-symptomatic with TB, pneumonia, seasonal flu, china flu, colds, hepatitis, measles and such? How do we protect ourselves from people? Is the stay at home "order" a tiny band-aide on a large cut? What have we truly learned here and how will it be applied to the subjects at a later date? How does the government plan to save us all, from all things?

Did we really flatten the curve or did it flatten by itself? If "we" did flatten the curve, have we only postponed the inevitable? For how long will it be flattened?

 

[Ingomike]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to T.Lex again.

 

[drillsgt]

It may also qualify as idiocy.

I understand, thoroughly, open carry at a, well, gun rights protest....

I guess it's all a matter of perspective lol.

 

[JettaKnight]

He's right. Alpo, that is.

The number of individuals who will be exposed is finite (basically). Over time, every American will be exposed to it.

Not everyone will develop an infection, and a relatively small percentage will need hospitalized or die from it.

To put it another way, instead of everyone jumping in the virus exposure pool at the same time, we're trying to form lines for how many people will be in that pool at any given time. Eventually, everyone will get dunked (or almost everyone).

I knew you'd come around to our way of thinking.

 

[T.Lex]

I knew you'd come around to our way of thinking.

Technically, we dunk everyone, too... just alot earlier.

 

[nonobaddog]

He's right. Alpo, that is.

The number of individuals who will be exposed is finite (basically). Over time, every American will be exposed to it.

Not everyone will develop an infection, and a relatively small percentage will need hospitalized or die from it.

To put it another way, instead of everyone jumping in the virus exposure pool at the same time, we're trying to form lines for how many people will be in that pool at any given time. Eventually, everyone will get dunked (or almost everyone).

That doesn't really fit well with epidemiology.
You see Herd Immunity is a variable. It is not just a simple one-size-fits-all thing. I think some people here think it is a constant or something. With a very contagious disease herd immunity is higher than with a less contagious disease.
Herd Immunity for measles(R0 12-18) is about 92-95%. Herd Immunity for Ebola(R0 1.5-2.5) is only about 33-60%.
R0 is a measure of a disease contagiousness, however R0 is also dependent on human behavior. If everybody isolates perfectly R0 drops to zero, even for a very infectious disease. So we as a population have some control over the R0 by our behavior such as demonstrated by some of the Asian cultures like Hong Kong where they have reduced the R0 of the chinese virus by the measures they have taken.
When a population reduces the R0 with their behavior they are also reducing the herd immunity threshold. This means fewer people need to actually be infected for herd immunity to be achieved and the disease fades.
If we can reduce the herd immunity threshold from 90% to 70% by our behavior(flattening the curve) that 20% gain means approximately 65 million fewer people in the US do not have to be infected. This comes with a bonus that some (arguable) number of people will not die as soon.

 

[T.Lex]

That doesn't really fit well with epidemiology.
You see Herd Immunity is a variable. It is not just a simple one-size-fits-all thing. I think some people here think it is a constant or something. With a very contagious disease herd immunity is higher than with a less contagious disease.
Herd Immunity for measles(R0 12-18) is about 92-95%. Herd Immunity for Ebola(R0 1.5-2.5) is only about 33-60%.
R0 is a measure of a disease contagiousness, however R0 is also dependent on human behavior. If everybody isolates perfectly R0 drops to zero, even for a very infectious disease. So we as a population have some control over the R0 by our behavior such as demonstrated by some of the Asian cultures like Hong Kong where they have reduced the R0 of the chinese virus by the measures they have taken.
When a population reduces the R0 with their behavior they are also reducing the herd immunity threshold. This means fewer people need to actually be infected for herd immunity to be achieved and the disease fades.
If we can reduce the herd immunity threshold from 90% to 70% by our behavior(flattening the curve) that 20% gain means approximately 65 million fewer people in the US do not have to be infected. This comes with a bonus that some (arguable) number of people will not die as soon.

I think we're (collectively) talking around each other on this. Go back and read Alpo's post (and probably chip's) again.

Exposure is not the same as infection which is not the same as immunity.

When you say "herd immunity" you are basically saying "widespread exposure." And, reducing R0 by behavior ignores the practical reality that such behavior changes do not scale in terms of geography or time. Closing a school for 2 weeks that has a flu outbreak and changing the behavior to reduce the local R0 is fine, and a valid strategy. But that doesn't scale to a national population of 300M for 6 months.

Plus, I'm not sure the "herd immunity threshold" is what you're saying it is, but I also can't figure out how to explain it. So I'll leave it alone.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I learned on Facebook that if we all just stay home, the virus will magically disappear some day and no one will ever die of anything again.

I think this is believed by several on INGO too.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

A shocking number of Republicans doubt official coronavirus death tolls

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Chinese University of Pittsburgh professor ‘on the verge of making very significant findings’ on COVID19 killed in apparent murder-suicide

 

[nonobaddog]

If you can take nothing else away from my post, just take the fact that herd immunity is not a constant.
It depends on the properties of the disease and the behavior of the population.
I believe the behavior of the majority of the entire population has changed.
I believe coughing in the near vacinity of others is more frowned upon than it used to be.
I believe people clustering (like work) when sick is frowned upon more than it used to be.
I believe more people will avoid packed crowds more than they used to.
I believe more people will avoid contact(like shaking hands) more than they used to.
These changes in behavior(flattening the curve) have reduced the herd immunity threshold so fewer people will be exposed, fewer people will be infected and fewer people will die.
The area under the flattened curve is lower.

 

[T.Lex]

If you can take nothing else away from my post, just take the fact that herd immunity is not a constant.
It depends on the properties of the disease and the behavior of the population.
I believe the behavior of the majority of the entire population has changed.
I believe coughing in the near vacinity of others is more frowned upon than it used to be.
I believe people clustering (like work) when sick is frowned upon more than it used to be.
I believe more people will avoid packed crowds more than they used to.
I believe more people will avoid contact(like shaking hands) more than they used to.
These changes in behavior(flattening the curve) have reduced the herd immunity threshold so fewer people will be exposed, fewer people will be infected and fewer people will die.
The area under the flattened curve is lower.

All of which can be true, along with the belief that the same number of people (specifically Americans) will be exposed over time with or without those things you mention.

Exposed.

Same number of people exposed.

 

[BugI02]

Well now hold on. It's the distance from the center that makes the stubbornness, not the direction from center. The world is filled with fringe ideologues both on the left and right. People on the fringe left are just as bat **** crazy as the fringe right. They're just anti-science in a different direction. So let's not try to assert that "anti-science" has anything to do with an exclusive ideology. Also let's not try to implicitly assert that one fringe is any more or less intelligent than the other. But I'll concede that the fringe left have more people with advanced degrees than the fringe right. Makes no difference. A bat **** crazy phd who believes he is justified in throwing bike locks at students he disagrees with is as bat **** crazy as Billy Ray Beaucracker holed up in his bunker making explosives to bomb the abortion clinic. The fringe nutter with a phd just means he's had a formal education in bat **** crazy.

True that

See: Ted Kaczynski - Harvard BA U of M (ho ho ho) MA and PhD (all in Mathematics)

 

[JettaKnight]

All of which can be true, along with the belief that the same number of people (specifically Americans) will be exposed over time with or without those things you mention.

Exposed.

Same number of people exposed.

Are we talking about my time modeling for Calvin Klein jeans again?


Those ads were a long time ago, and I was much younger, I hope I'm still immune because that level of exposure made me uncomfortable.

 

[BugI02]

Well. Yeah, but you're talking about why another, much smaller country, with a way smaller research budget, is further along in some of the virology than we are. It's not because all our researchers are social justice warriors. It's more likely it's because of priorities.

I prefer to believe that having implacable, existential enemies on all sides concentrates the mind and winnows away the bull****

 

[jamil]

Ignoring the question for now on whether china let this virus out "accidentally" or "intentionally".
Why were they playing with it in the first place?

I've heard these reasons in the media lately.

1) Coronaviruses from bats are too common in the region and so they're trying to understand its transmission to humans better.

2) China wants to be better than the West at everything, including virology.

3) China was trying to figure out how to replicate it.

Any or none of those reasons could be true, but I've seen them reported.

 

[BugI02]

Agreed that we can slow it. I read an Italian study of Lupus patients and less than 3% of the over 8000 in Italy that where taking hydroxychloroquine even contracted covid-19.None where hospitalized and zero died even though they had lupus. The problem is most do not take it early and it is much less effective by the time someone actually tests positive or shows up at a hospital.

From what I have seen and read Auranofin is a better drug for most cases in the USA that show up only when they are ready to be admitted into the hospital.

One complication of compounds using gold that I'm familiar with (from cases within my family) is increased susceptibility to intraoccular bleeding, esp small blood vessel/retinal. One likely group to have issues I would expect to be age related macular degeneration sufferers