Scott Atlas is an actual doctor, isn’t he? Like an orthopedic surgeon or something.
edit: radiologist!
I can assure you Canadian governments have no fucking clue what they’re doing. One huge downside of our hyper polite culture is that bureaucrats are never truly held to any standards of performance. Theres a lot of bumbling incompetence but it would be considered way to aggressive, almost American, to threaten to fire someone. How rude!
2 Likes
Have to reinforce that this is not a thing because this is exponential growth. If R0>1, there can’t be herd immunity. It can’t be partial.
I know. Herd immunity is R<1 for all possible circumstances. I’m saying that if you get like 40% vaccinated or recovered in concert with social distancing you could see a rapid decrease in cases. Basically what happened in the Dakotas but on a national scale.
No.
1 Like
compelling
It isn’t how it works and it’s been explained over and over.
This is just flat incorrect. You clearly don’t understand the math here. The only way to get a rapid decrease in cases is to get R0<1. 40% vaccinated is not going to be enough to do that by our estimations, so it would not lead to a rapid decrease in cases.
You do not understand that this is exponential growth and what the consequences of that are.
- It’s not that I think the long term immunity wouldn’t be as good, but that it hasn’t ever been tested rigorously: the stakes are too high to take any unnecessary risks at the moment (this could change).
1 Like
I think I do understand the math. There is a different R for any set of social distancing levels, seasonality, and percentage of immune people. If that R is above one for a level of distancing, seasonality, and percent immune, you’re going to have exponential growth, if it’s below one you’ll see a decay in cases.
Herd immunity is the percent of the population that you need to have immune to prevent R>1 for ANY level of social distancing and seasonality. It needs to prevent R>1 on a cruise ship going to Alaska in winter. But you can get R below one at levels of immunity below herd immunity with certain levels of social distancing in place. It just won’t provide robust protection because you can still get exponential growth months down the road when the levels of social distancing are relaxed.
1 Like
This is not herd immunity. This is the effect of social distancing. It’s also not what you were talking about before. You’re wrong. I’m out.
That is what I was talking about. And it’s both the effect of social distancing AND the fraction immune. You can have a level of social distancing that has R>1 with 0% of the population immune but at 40% immune that same level of social distancing might have R<1.
Keed- can simply accept that you don’t understand the definition of Herd Immunity and move on?
Herd immunity would mean we interact normally without masks and it doesn’t spread- can be some isolated outbreaks but very few in occurrence.
Are you familiar with Beer’s law for light absorption? The math is similar.
There is officially a 2/3 chance I’m getting my first shot on Friday. No placebo, one time.
10 Likes
No, I can’t accept I don’t understand the definition of herd immunity. Because I gave exactly the same definition as you did:
Keeed has decided that he can just redefine terms, then state the correct definition, then go back to the redefinition and pretend like he understands everything.
What he’s trying to accomplish here is beyond me.
1 Like
What I am saying is simple and should be uncontroversial. Increasing the fraction of the population that is immune to the virus will slow the spread of the virus even if that fraction is below herd immunity.
Keeed has decided that he can just redefine terms, then state the correct definition, then go back to the redefinition and pretend like he understands everything.
1 Like
I’m not redefining anything. I shouldn’t have described the phenomenon as “partial modified herd,” I thought it would be clear I meant that it was not actually true herd immunity I was alluding to, but the increasing fraction of immune persons driving R below 1 for the current level of social distancing practices. Sorry that wasn’t clear.
Other than calling your combined thesis
“herd immunity”.
Otherwise yes. Some combination of immunity and social distancing can get R<1.
Maybe it takes less stringent social distancing/masking when the immunity reaches some % but still below herd.
Whether that’s an appreciable range i have no clue. My sense is we keep up with social measures until the epidemiologists say it’s ok not too.
Words have meanings. We can’t see inside your head so we have to trust your definitions.
Acquired immunity plus SD is probably a better term than anything including “herd”.
2 Likes