Jump to content

Herd immunity ?


Observer II
 Share

Recommended Posts

There are now calls for HMG to quit trying lock downs and to go for full on herd immunity.   Unfortunately, there are still outstanding questions with this approach:-  1)  Can natural immunity occur, we await evidence.  2)  There are now cases of "long Covid",  particularly in middle aged groups, and alleged second time infections  with persisting auto-immune disorders.  What we do know, is that closed environments like pubs and resturants, University Accomodation (and even the White House! 😉)  facilitate spread, so it would sound logical to close them asap.  Schools and children appear less at risk, so if they want to experiment with herd immunity, perhaps children should be the first cohort, however kids go home to parents thus placing them at risk.   Meanwhile, the grumpies are now less likely to die, because they are hibernating, and will probably need to, until a vaccine is produced.        😷

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that we need to learn to live with this virus. It has been shown that lockdowns, both national and local, are ineffective. Waiting for a vaccine isn't really an option because there is no evidence that it will work or be more effective than herd immunity. Obs has poured scorn on herd immunity from the start so at least he's being consistent in that, even without evidence. Meanwhile the government continues to be guided by the science, or at least the science it wants to listen to but otherwise it makes things up on the fly e.g. the rule of 6 and 10 o'clock closing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asp. I've no doubt that herd immunity can work - for the some who survive. Past plagues where no medical defences were available, basically killed half the population, so we must presume the remaining half had some immunity.   So basically, the question is - how high a death rate do you find acceptable ?  Like the common cold, there is no proven immunity as yet, which tends to undermine the herd theory.    😷 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several doctors saying that there will be herd immunity whatever else happens. How high a death rate from flu do you find acceptable? Flu vaccines are only around 10% effective. How high a death rate from undetected cancer, heart disease, hypertension etc do you find acceptable? How about deaths from suicide due to government over-reaction?

And as for your "for the some who survive" quip, as if the death rate was 98% rather than the survival rate, back to the fear-mongering drawing board for you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Black death is estimated to have killed 50% of the population in Europe, the 1918 flu pandemic killed over 50 million,   I don't think your assortment of alternate causes of mortality come anywhere near that. So if the covid death rate is below cancer and the rest, it's OK ? - but you can't guarantee that with a highly infectious disease.     😷  💀 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This virus is ideal for the internet generation & the statisticians who can make numbers appear impressive. There are so many opinions & ideas floating about from the scientists ,many of whom contradict each other, that the government are now going round in circles ,just like the oozalum bird. The probable outcome is that ,at some point, caution will have to be thrown to the wind to save the economy & broader society & let humanity make its own way through this new viral minefield. Nature is important to us all & ,if this virus isn't man made, there probably isn't a lot that can be done against a natural occurrence. The weather ,hurricanes ,earthquakes & other natural occurrences ,we can't control them either.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Observer II said:

The Black death is estimated to have killed 50% of the population in Europe, the 1918 flu pandemic killed over 50 million,   I don't think your assortment of alternate causes of mortality come anywhere near that. So if the covid death rate is below cancer and the rest, it's OK ? - but you can't guarantee that with a highly infectious disease.     😷  💀 

At present Covid 19 has killed less than 0.02% of the world's population, nowhere near your apocalyptic 50% Black Death scenario Obs. So don't you think we need to get some sense of proportion about this and start treating the Cancer, Heart Disease etc patients again with as much urgency as Covid patients? Of course it's very distressing for the relatives and friends of people who have died from this disease, but people die all the time. In the last 15 years I have lost my wife, son, both parents, two younger brothers, a nephew, several close work colleagues and numerous acquaintances but I don't expect the government to shut the country down to stop this litany of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the rate of infection rises above 1, which is now the case in many parts of the Country,  the rise in cases will increase exponentially, taking off like a wild fire beyond our control, overwhelming health services, thus making the NHS incapable of treating any other diseases that you mentioned.  It will eventually, despite all the precautions, reach the elderly and vulnerable, increasing the mortality rate - the question then is, how high are you prepared for it to go ?     😷

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A better question would be why do you keep conflating "cases" and "deaths"? This seems to be the reasoning behind lockdowns, the rule of 6 and 10pm pub and restaurant closures - saying that these actions are necessary because of the rise in "cases". Non of these measures are going to stop the spread of a contagious virus and deaths are inevitable amongst the vulnerable. The NHS has never been close to being overwhelmed and is now in a better position from the point of view of knowing more about the virus and how to treat it than they were 6 months ago. So are we going to continue destroying the whole country in order to extend the lives of some people (I won't say "save the lives" of some people - everyone dies eventually!!) or are we going to be rational and get back to normal? Anyone who doesn't know the risks of mixing with other people must be living in a place where they have no physical contact with anyone else, so it's up to you whether you want to be exposed to risk or live in a box.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no proof, as yet, as to the long term effects on younger folk who get infected, neither is there evidence that immunity can be achieved.  "Cases" facilitate "spread", "spread" increases death rates in at risk groups.  Perhaps, in adherance to your theory, all elderly and other at risk groups should have been asked to commit suicide, in order to allow the rest to get back to "normal" ?    Don't conflate the actions of Boris with an attempt to stop this virus in it's tracks;  they are dithering between the health of us all and the health of the economy, which causes them to want the cake and eat it by premature easing of lock downs, hence the nonsense of of 10pm pub closures rather than full on closures. The most successful Country to date, in erradicating the virus, is N/Zealand,  although being an Island with a small population may have made things easier.   😷

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Observer II said:

There's no proof, as yet, as to the long term effects on younger folk who get infected, neither is there evidence that immunity can be achieved.  "Cases" facilitate "spread", "spread" increases death rates in at risk groups.  Perhaps, in adherance to your theory, all elderly and other at risk groups should have been asked to commit suicide, in order to allow the rest to get back to "normal" ?    Don't conflate the actions of Boris with an attempt to stop this virus in it's tracks;  they are dithering between the health of us all and the health of the economy, which causes them to want the cake and eat it by premature easing of lock downs, hence the nonsense of of 10pm pub closures rather than full on closures. The most successful Country to date, in erradicating the virus, is N/Zealand,  although being an Island with a small population may have made things easier.   😷

You come up with some inane comments but this is amongst the stupidest.

You want to close the country down without any thought as to the consequences. A lot of people, perhaps a majority, want to end the madness of lockdowns and curfews that don't work and return to some semblance of normality. There are some sections of the population that need protection, but the majority could probably get the virus and not notice it.

There are plenty of countries in the world that have larger populations with fewer cases and deaths than New Zealand, and without draconian measures. I should imagine that social mobility plays a large part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said anything about "closing down" the Country ?   Seems, even during the worst lock down the economy, or at least the "essential" parts of it were still ticking over.  The polls contradict your assertion that "most people" want normality;  they do, providing the virus is no longer a threat.  The Jury is out on the long terms effect of the virus or whether one can become immune; today's youngsters could finish up as old codgers with all sorts of auto-immune diseases, as a result.   😷

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Scientists are already identifying other viruses that can become similar threats; which will mean we go through this saga at periodic intervals, unless they can identify and eliminate the causes, ahead of the curve.     😷

I give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, asperity said:

... so it's up to you whether you want to be exposed to risk or live in a box.

There's the rub, it isn't up to me because I have to go to the shops and a pharmacy and various other places because that is how society works. Therefore I cannot shield from all contact with others. If they carry the virus I and others trying their best not to get it will succumb. This idea that only the vulnerable need take any action is wrong headed. Everyone needs to stop taking risks of spreading the virus when it can be avoided, that is not the same as living life normally as that is just plain selfish and irresponsible. I don't advocate full lockdown but considerate behaviour to manage the number of infected people. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

There's the rub, it isn't up to me because I have to go to the shops and a pharmacy and various other places because that is how society works. Therefore I cannot shield from all contact with others. If they carry the virus I and others trying their best not to get it will succumb. This idea that only the vulnerable need take any action is wrong headed. Everyone needs to stop taking risks of spreading the virus when it can be avoided, that is not the same as living life normally as that is just plain selfish and irresponsible. I don't advocate full lockdown but considerate behaviour to manage the number of infected people. 

You need to go to the shops and the pharmacy etc but you want everyone else to keep well away from you because they are selfish and will otherwise give you the dreaded virus? That isn't how society works, you have to interact with your fellow men. So that means you either accept there's a risk and protect yourself, and every one else, as best you can or lock yourself away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, asperity said:

You need to go to the shops and the pharmacy etc but you want everyone else to keep well away from you because they are selfish and will otherwise give you the dreaded virus? That isn't how society works, you have to interact with your fellow men. So that means you either accept there's a risk and protect yourself, and every one else, as best you can or lock yourself away.

You still will not accept that we have a responsibility to others will you? I cant protect myself from them with a mask but they can protect me as I protect others by wearing a mask and keeping my distance. Why can't you accept the reality of the situation?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Confused52 said:

You still will not accept that we have a responsibility to others will you? I cant protect myself from them with a mask but they can protect me as I protect others by wearing a mask and keeping my distance. Why can't you accept the reality of the situation?

Why do you think that? If you wear a mask and believe you are protected so long as everyone you come close to is wearing a mask also (not a perfect solution but what else is there?) it is up to you to protect yourself by avoiding people who aren't wearing a mask. I don't go out more than once a week and I wear a mask when I'm expected to. But I don't expect everyone else to do so because I know that there are a lot of optimists out there who don't believe anything bad could happen to them. I'm 69 and therefore I'm classed as "vulnerable" so don't get it into your head that I'm unaware of the risks. But your safety is your responsibility no one else's however much you would like it to be that's all I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apples and Oranges Obs. On board ship everyone is aware that they are dependent on everyone else for their well being. The general public, however, are less interested in the welfare of anyone else because they don't feel that their own lives may be dependent on others - until it all goes pear shaped and then it's "someone else's fault". In other words people tend to be selfish and if you depend on other people looking out for you interests you may well be disappointed. The PTB are pointing the blame for rising cases at "the public" when really we know who is really at fault - the usual suspects who believe in doing what they want and to hell with the rest of you. Unfortunately these same people tend to be the same ones that come up smelling of roses. Karma, while a nice idea, doesn't really exist. So look out for yourself first, your friends and neighbours second, but don't rely on anyone looking out for you in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...