I don't think DadHammer is arguing against a lockdown flattening the curve, but is saying that the area under the curve, and thus eventual deaths is the same as long as hospital resources aren't overwhelmed and the death rate doesn't improve significantly over time with new treatments that take time to develop.fig96 said:
I feel like we need some context of other family members for the "66% in lockdown statistic" that we don't have. For one it doesn't account for typical errands that an individual might be doing and how safe they might be while doing them or whether they're disinfecting and washing their hands regularly.
It's also misleading because it ignores the fact that their case numbers have dropped off dramatically while people have been quarantining, so acting like social distancing didn't have any effect is pretty disingenuous.
dragmagpuff said:I don't think DadHammer is arguing against a lockdown flattening the curve, but is saying that the area under the curve, and thus eventual deaths is the same as long as hospital resources aren't overwhelmed and the death rate doesn't improve significantly over time with new treatments that take time to develop.fig96 said:
I feel like we need some context of other family members for the "66% in lockdown statistic" that we don't have. For one it doesn't account for typical errands that an individual might be doing and how safe they might be while doing them or whether they're disinfecting and washing their hands regularly.
It's also misleading because it ignores the fact that their case numbers have dropped off dramatically while people have been quarantining, so acting like social distancing didn't have any effect is pretty disingenuous.
I completely understand that the herd immunity threshold increases the more contagious a virus is.Infection_Ag11 said:dragmagpuff said:I don't think DadHammer is arguing against a lockdown flattening the curve, but is saying that the area under the curve, and thus eventual deaths is the same as long as hospital resources aren't overwhelmed and the death rate doesn't improve significantly over time with new treatments that take time to develop.fig96 said:
I feel like we need some context of other family members for the "66% in lockdown statistic" that we don't have. For one it doesn't account for typical errands that an individual might be doing and how safe they might be while doing them or whether they're disinfecting and washing their hands regularly.
It's also misleading because it ignores the fact that their case numbers have dropped off dramatically while people have been quarantining, so acting like social distancing didn't have any effect is pretty disingenuous.
That is what he's arguing, it's just wrong. In this case the transmission rate, and thus the area under the curve, changes with social behavior.
Infection_Ag11 said:dragmagpuff said:I don't think DadHammer is arguing against a lockdown flattening the curve, but is saying that the area under the curve, and thus eventual deaths is the same as long as hospital resources aren't overwhelmed and the death rate doesn't improve significantly over time with new treatments that take time to develop.fig96 said:
I feel like we need some context of other family members for the "66% in lockdown statistic" that we don't have. For one it doesn't account for typical errands that an individual might be doing and how safe they might be while doing them or whether they're disinfecting and washing their hands regularly.
It's also misleading because it ignores the fact that their case numbers have dropped off dramatically while people have been quarantining, so acting like social distancing didn't have any effect is pretty disingenuous.
That is what he's arguing, it's just wrong. In this case the transmission rate, and thus the area under the curve, changes with social behavior.
You just believe that because you want to believe it because it fits your world view. You have no scientific basis for that theory or belief. From what we understand about infectious diseases, you are wrong.DadHammer said:
In a small time frame say 8-12 months or so and the hospitals have room, I absolutely believe about the same number of deaths will occur over time. Especially looking at who the disease kills the most as it is a very targeted type of person for the most part. The disease will not be eradicated before it spreads to most people over time. But if by some miracle a cure is found before that time frame then yes less people will die over time. It's just not feasible to have a lock down that lasts long enough to eradicate this virus. Plus we are never really locked down as everyone goes shopping, gets food delivered, goes to Home Depot, etc....
DadHammer said:
In a small time frame say 8-12 months or so and the hospitals have room, I absolutely believe about the same number of deaths will occur over time. Especially looking at who the disease kills the most as it is a very targeted type of person for the most part. The disease will not be eradicated before it spreads to most people over time. But if by some miracle a cure is found before that time frame then yes less people will die over time. It's just not feasible to have a lock down that lasts long enough to eradicate this virus. Plus we are never really locked down as everyone goes shopping, gets food delivered, goes to Home Depot, etc....
HotardAg07 said:
That's not how infectious disease works. If you depress the rate of transmission and flatten the curve you lower the bar for herd immunity and less people get infected and die. If you won't believe the infectious disease doctor on this board when he tells you that, I don't know what else you need to see that will convince you. There are lots of articles and posts out there from epidemiologists who explain how this works.
cone said:
but isn't herd immunity calculated based on R0 not Rt?
and you don't need to be so combative with the appeal to authority. I'm just asking a question.
if you've got some links to share to educate me as to how R0 reduction methods reduces herd immunity requirements then please share.
I can absolutely understand how if the human status quo moving forward was one of distance, masking, extensive contact tracing and testing, then the Rt would be the new R0 for all intents and purposes. but if it's endemic, globally, and you eventually return to some version of pre-virus, then the R0 returns with its herd immunity requirements
of course a vaccine artificially brings you above the herd immunity threshold regardless. but the virus remains the virus so long as it's in the world.
Except it is going to be endemic... not go away. Far too wide spread for quarantine to control the spread at this point. Ultimately, most people will be exposed eventually, maybe in a series of curves as an area isolates active infections and then someone brings a new wave.k2aggie07 said:
Yeah, but that isn't correct. The lower the effective transmission rate, the fewer people get it. Area under the curve isn't constant.
swintie said:
Cone, you are absolutely right. You are also being much nicer about it than I would ever be. I think you know darned well that you are right, but are playing the part of "Columbo" in pretending you are confused in order to get others to come to the right conclusion on their own. I don't have that kind of patience :-)
Yes, we can modulate R(t) through behavioral changes. Yes, that lowers the bar for herd immunity as long as those behavioral changes are in place. As soon as behavior goes back to "normal", R(t) goes back to the original R_0 (and the original % required for herd immunity). Almost ALL of these models that are reported show what happens assuming the controls are in place for as long as necessary. We know that isn't going to happen (shutting down the economy for two years waiting for a vaccine),
cone said:
I'll check it out
but I'll ask again, doesn't R0 stay R0
and if so, doesn't the herd immunity remain tied to the value
that's why a 20% seroprevalence in NYC and Rt in the 1.3 range now doesn't mean NYC is reaching herd immunity. it would have to still get to +60% if/when they eventually begin to relax the measures that reduced it to the current Rt.
of course, you can drive Rt to below one and let it burn itself out over time, but this is global. you're going to be importing cases eventually since not everywhere is reducing the spread to eradicate the disease.
You said it best.. cone is being very patient with these guys. The area under the curve doesn't change if society goes back to ore-covid. The data, the models, the science all show this.swintie said:
Cone, you are absolutely right. You are also being much nicer about it than I would ever be. I think you know darned well that you are right, but are playing the part of "Columbo" in pretending you are confused in order to get others to come to the right conclusion on their own. I don't have that kind of patience :-)
Yes, we can modulate R(t) through behavioral changes. Yes, that lowers the bar for herd immunity as long as those behavioral changes are in place. As soon as behavior goes back to "normal", R(t) goes back to the original R_0 (and the original % required for herd immunity). Almost ALL of these models that are reported show what happens assuming the controls are in place for as long as necessary. We know that isn't going to happen (shutting down the economy for two years waiting for a vaccine),
cone said:
what took the biggest bite out of R0?
personally I think this is a very super spreader friendly bug, so large gatherings was huge. and corporate work from home. and restaurants going take out only.
who knows? maybe universal masking (which wasn't the first step, but is by all accounts an effective step) can offset the anti-social methods. but if the thought is that you can't go to church or a NBA game ever again without a mask for a bug that effectively kills a small relatively predictable part of the population, generally at ages ABOVE the life expectancy, well I don't think that's politically sustainable.
two years of masking/distancing of a new normal while THEY FIND A WAY TO OPEN SCHOOLS AND DAYCARES, yes that's plausible. perpetual suppression of R0 for a disease that has a 0.7-1.0 IFR and the median age of death so far in the 80s, yeah I don't know about that.
South Korea has not come close to suppressing their virus transmission through herd immunity. They did not just flatten the curve, they bent it downward. (I think that this is a good thing).HotardAg07 said:
That's not how infectious disease works. If you depress the rate of transmission and flatten the curve you lower the bar for herd immunity and less people get infected and die. If you won't believe the infectious disease doctor on this board when he tells you that, I don't know what else you need to see that will convince you. There are lots of articles and posts out there from epidemiologists who explain how this works.
My assumption here is that it's easier for people to rationalize their closely held belief that we need to open everything up if they can also believe that closing or not closing makes no difference to the outcome there's no trade off. However, there is a trade off and more people will get infected and more people will die the more that the disease is allowed to spread. I think it is perfectly fine to have a debate on the trade offs and how we should weight things. I don't think we should make up science to tell ourselves it doesn't matter what we do.
Let's put it this way, bump this thread in 2 years. If South Korea has more deaths or the same amount of deaths per capita than Sweden or the US I will PayPal you $100. If your theory is right that all of the suppression techniques are meaningless over the long haul, then I assume you conclude that South Korea must eventually have enough people get infected and die to equalize with Sweden or the US.
cone said:
is South Korea going to be a closed system into perpetuity?
as far as the virus is concerned, they are still virgin timber
This is why A&M is studying BCG vaccine as a preventative for COVID. India should have been over run with deaths but it was not. Is universal BCG the answer?culdeus said:cone said:
is South Korea going to be a closed system into perpetuity?
as far as the virus is concerned, they are still virgin timber
So is Vietnam. And to an extent India.
