This is incorrect. Exponential math doesn’t work that way
what odds might you be offering, bearing in mind the plummeting trends and my lonely position on the forecasts?
I’d do 2:1 on deaths. My 500 to your 250 if you want.
cases? consider booked if so (too morbid to bet on deaths)
Can do your 6 to my 1 if daily case record doubles before end June 21? (assumes daily testing rate per capita remains constant)
Is there high level of immunity amongst the YOLO set? I think that’s a valid question. It is NOT herd. Herd implies we can all YOLO and those who have no immunity are protected. If all of those that have been careful started eating in restaurants im certain we would have a surge.
I’m not sure how to explain the drop. There may be some seasonality, remember it didn’t really take off last year until nowish and it had no masks or social distancing in January 2020.
The interesting thing is that it’s happening most everywhere at the same time.
Several factors.
They haven’t yet developed their own and have been waiting in line for Pfizer’s.
There have been logistical issues in securing the required refrigeration and vial equipment (different standard here).
They have been more rigorous about testing the vaccine independently before unleashing it on the public and slower and more deliberate in developing home-grown ones.
And because compared with the U.S. and most of the world COVID spread here has, at least until recently, been relatively tame, there was less urgency to rush out a vaccine.
2 Likes
There’s lots of possible explanations. Partial herd immunity isn’t one of them.
Highest 7dma cases on Worldometers. I have we wont surpass the previous peak in 2021 of 255,260 you have we will. My 500 to your 250. Confirm to book.
Every person removed from the contagion chain - whether through social isolation, n95 mask-wearing, vaccination, or required COVID - reduces the real-world and maximum R0 of disease spread. You can nitpick the term “partial herd immunity” if you want, but exponential growth is hampered by a reduction in the vectors for that growth.
1 Like
That isn’t a nitpick. It’s a basic core concept. Mitigation measures that are temporary are not ‘partial herd immunity’.
This is the third time at least I’ve talked about this in this thread.
I really don’t want to do this again. But of course it does at some point.
Let’s say 30% of the people already had covid, 10% are vaccinated, and 40% are still isolating. That’s 20% of the population left for the virus to plow through - maybe not enough population density to keep R over 1. That 30% who already had it could be the difference in R over 1 or under 1.
This is just a hypothetical - not saying it matches US #s.
A second spike could still come when people who are isolating get complacent. Or a new variant. Or immunity from the sickness wears off. If none of those things happen it may have a hard time.
By your logic if we’re 1% under herd immunity we’re still in danger of just as big of a spike as if we’re at zero immunity. Obviously that’s not the case. There’s a point at which the amount of people previously infected matters. Otherwise instead of a smooth top, the case spike would just end and immediately go to zero.
2 Likes
Herd immunity is a specific term. It means that a high level of community immunity protects those without immunity under normal behavior.
If we just open up tomorrow and YOLO then we get a spike. Guaranteed.
Come up with a new name. Not “partial herd immunity”.
2 Likes
And we’ve all established what we’re talking about here. We’re just talking about the % of people who have recovered from covid and have immunity. Nothing more. It’s functionally the same as the % of people who have been fully vaccinated - at least until immunity starts to wear off.
Right - if the 40% or w/e who are still isolating YOLO it tomorrow - we absolutely get a spike.
Exponential math works one way. That some point where transmission is meaningfully affected is much higher than what we’ve achieved, and it’s an extremely small window.
You are simply not correct.
Which is why he’s trying to qualify it with “partial herd immunity.” Theres maybe a better term to use but the core idea makes sense.
1 Like
Can we just call it “more people immune leaves less people to get the ‘rona”?
2 Likes
And you’re consistently overgeneralizing, which is why you keep getting challenged. Reducing disease vectors via short-term immunity doesn’t necessarily reduce the total number of infected in the long-term, but it absolutely and immediately starts to reduce the rate of transmission and subsequently flattens case curves.
2 Likes
Sure but none of that changes what basic terms in medicine mean. Herd immunity means a specific thing. Partial herd immunity doesn’t exist in any meaningful way. Exponential math simply doesn’t allow it
Scientists can get pretty prickly over definitions. Given the butchering of the herd immunity concept, I’m on board with tight definitions here.
One concept is independent— if enough folks are immune than non immune folks are protected due to lack of spread.
The other is highly dependent on behavior and readily falls apart if the non immune are exposed.
See that’s the whole point, this effect is super small.
Herd immunity = 1-1/R0 has profound implications for this discussion.
The consequences of the math being exponential makes this effect extremely small until it suddenly stops being small. It’s not a linear effect.
What is being talked about here is mostly temporary measures that lower R0. The lowering of the R0 isn’t coming from the virus being blocked by running into immune people.