Good Bloomberg Article Regarding Herd Immunity

3,868 Views | 34 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by The Big12Ag
Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This writer primarily profiles YouYang Gu, whose models and research have been pretty accurate regarding COVID trends. There are other researchers listed as well.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-08-13/covid-spread-is-forcing-scientists-to-rethink-herd-immunity

Some of the points I like. Public dialogue vs actual data

Quote:

He pointed to data on Louisiana, where cases were rising earlier in the summer and seemed to level off after various counties issued mask mandates.

But breaking the data down by county, he says, revealed a different story. Mask mandates varied in their timing, but places that implemented them late saw no more cases or deaths than those that did so early. "I don't think there's currently enough evidence to support the fact that recent policy interventions (mask mandates, bar closures) were the main drivers behind the recent decrease in cases," he wrote.

On the definition of herd immunity

Quote:

But scientists have little experience applying herd immunity to a natural infection, and what understanding they have is changing. Scientists have started to investigate the possibility that there's another critical factor here heterogeneity in the way humans interact, and in our inherent, biological susceptibility to this disease.

In a Science paper published in June, University of Stockholm mathematician Tom Britton and colleagues calculated that herd immunity might be reached after as few as 43% of a very heterogenous population becomes infected. People mix unevenly in a way that could lead to little pockets of immunity, slowing the spread of the virus long before the world achieves herd immunity.

We may also be heterogeneous in our biology. A recent paper in Science suggests that many people who've never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 carry a kind of immune cell, called a T-cell, which recognizes this novel virus and may partially mitigate an infection.

And how they see it trending going forward

Quote:

Those differences can inform disease models, says statistics professor Gabriela Gomes of the University of Strathclyde in Scotland. "What we see is that infections do not occur at random, but that people who are most susceptible to infection get exposed first," she says, leaving a pool of ever-less susceptible people behind.

So far, her predictions of the spread in the U.K., Belgium, Spain and Portugal have aligned well with reality. Her models showed small, shallow second peaks that would concentrate away from the places where the pandemic was most rampant last spring. For example, in Spain, the first outbreak was around Madrid, and now a smaller outbreak is happening around Catalonia.

She says her models keep predicting declines after the infection reached between 10% and 35% of the population. That doesn't mean the virus has gone away only that by her models, it won't explode in those same places again. Gu's models, too, predict no big second waves in New York City or Stockholm, but leave open the possibility of new outbreaks in relatively unaffected areas, just as Hawaii is now fighting outbreaks and New Zealand has imposed a new, short lockdown.
Keegan99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pretty much spot on.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's been the most consistent way to fight this thing outside of complete lockdowns, which aren't feasible or acceptable in many of our eyes.
RandyAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pretty much makes the most sense. Unfortunately, we are trying to kick the can down the road instead of dealing with it.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10-35% is a wide range, but it makes sense because there is no way to know the exact amount of pre-existing Tcells within any individual community. So lets assume texas is right in the middle, 22.5%

In texas, we are at 15, 20, or up to 25% depending on the charts/graphs you are looking at. I'd lean towards 20-24%, which coincides with us stabilizing off, and should now be a clear trend down if everything in those models are correct.

I think you will obviously still see some localized flare ups here and there where their might be less prevalence, but ultimately as a state, we should keep our trend downwards. And I think this happens regardless of business closures, masks, social distancing now that we are at this point. If Abbott wants to continue to keep those in place for another month to see these trends, that's one thing. Much beyond that I don't think will be necessary.

Especially with so much conflicting data regarding masks.
HotardAg07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
beerad12man said:

10-35% is a wide range, but it makes sense because there is no way to know the exact amount of pre-existing Tcells within any individual community. So lets assume texas is right in the middle, 22.5%

In texas, we are at 15, 20, or up to 25% depending on the charts/graphs you are looking at. I'd lean towards 20-24%, which coincides with us stabilizing off, and should now be a clear trend down if everything in those models are correct.

I think you will obviously still see some localized flare ups here and there where their might be less prevalence, but ultimately as a state, we should keep our trend downwards. And I think this happens regardless of business closures, masks, social distancing now that we are at this point. If Abbott wants to continue to keep those in place for another month to see these trends, that's one thing. Much beyond that I don't think will be necessary.

Especially with so much conflicting data regarding masks.
Youyang Gu and Maria Gomes are basing their apparent lower "natural" herd immunity estimates with no contribution from T-cell cross reactivity. They've both modeled the virus to show how it works. However, both do not try to claim that if everything were back to normal tomorrow that we would be still be enjoying herd immunity.

Below are some enlightening threads for virus experts







Also, when we quote Youyang Gu, let's not omit the caveats he used in his Twitter thread talking about Louisiana. The context is important.


Quote:

Caveat #1: I am not an epidemiologist nor a public health expert, so please listen to the health experts.

Caveat #2: From a statistical perspective, it is difficult to disentangle population immunity from behavior changes, because the two variables are likely collinear.

Caveat #3: The effects of immunity are likely strongly conditioned on the current level of social distancing and behavior.

If society were to "return to normal", then the effects of such immunity would be significantly reduced as the rate of transmission increases.

Caveat #4: I am not making any claims about the role of interventions in the scenario where population immunity does not play a major role.

Caveat #5: I presented an example using data from Louisiana, but it may not be representative of the entire US.

Caveat #6: I am not claiming that all policy interventions don't work. Nor do I make any claims about existing restrictions (e.g. capacity limits, large gathering bans).

Caveat #7: I apologize in advance if I said anything inaccurate. Please let me know and I will correct it.
AggieSarah01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Unfortunately here in NM we are still sitting at .8% because we've been locked down for so long. Still no indoor dining. Talking about online schools until January.
plain_o_llama
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting discussion. However, I now have used up my allotment of Bloomberg articles for the rest of the month.
:-(

This was a fascinating angle also:

She says she didn't expect to come up against resistance to her models in the scientific community. While she's starting to get some attention in the media, she said journal editors told her that her modeling ideas, in preprint, posed the danger of making people feel entitled to relax their vigilance. Maybe the opposite is true, she suggests. Maybe censoring all but the most pessimistic views could discourage action by making the problem seem endless.

The controversy mirrors one that took place a few years ago when renowned cancer researcher Bert Vogelstein dared to suggest that the very nature of cancer had a random element and therefore some people who did everything right would get cancer through bad luck. He was pilloried for the view, not because it was untrue, but because it was deemed a dangerous invitation for people to be bad.



If you end up dealing with medical literature to assess treatment options for yourself or others you may run into this idea that smacks of randomness, luck or even non-determinism. What does it mean that my chance of recovery is 60% if I do X? I will either recover or not. I don't end up 60% recovered. Part of this is populations vs individuals but there is more going on. Our intuitions and language are really bad at processing that. It isn't really a risk in the technical sense or maybe it is?

Another side of this is how a lot of scientists believe they are above "politics" in their work. Yet there are plenty of examples of how they are aware of the implications of their research and adjust what they say, study, and approve in peer review.

HotardAg07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggieSarah01 said:

Unfortunately here in NM we are still sitting at .8% because we've been locked down for so long. Still no indoor dining. Talking about online schools until January.
This model estimates NM is really at 8.2%
https://covid19-projections.com/us-nm

Recorded cases do not accurately reflect total infections.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggieSarah01 said:

Unfortunately here in NM we are still sitting at .8% because we've been locked down for so long. Still no indoor dining. Talking about online schools until January.
So dumb. We have to travel through New Mexico on our way to Utah(Moab, Arches/Canyonlands) in a couple of weeks. We were going to see the cave. Now, we are just able to drive straight through. Stay at our hotel. Can't even go out due to the 2 week quarantine. Maybe we'll order a pizza and get drunk at the marriott. IDK. Just a means to get to Utah.

In fairness, if the death rate is 0.25% like some suggest, NM might be closer to 13% than 0.8%, FWIW. And like the site above says, maybe 8%. That would be about a .4% death rate.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
True. But the good news is, even if we aren't ready to be back at 100%, there will still be plenty taking precautions.

More hand washing in general. Many businesses keeping employees at home, and/or continue to social distance them and wear masks. The elderly more likely to continue to social distance for a while, and, whether it helps or not, I'd say 50% or so of the population will keep wearing masks voluntarily. Maybe ony 25%, but even Sweden shows that's enough when they are at roughly the percent exposed as we are in Texas. Or at least, will be soon. Actually by that same site, 11.9% in Sweden. Seems crazy since they aren't wearing masks, and are really only limiting 50+ person mass gatherings. Maybe they are just in great health? Or lack of immigration helps.

We don't need this to be zero. Or perfect. We need to keep it at or below 1. Hospitals will be fine if so. Even with no more mandates, I think we are at the point where that would be fine just based on natural, recently trained behavior. Many would do it voluntarily, at least for a while. But I can understand where Abbott won't see it that way and take the risk just yet.
Cepe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I find this discussion fascinating and the article aligns with my way of thinking.

I need to look into the Valley here in Texas to see what the numbers are looking like because I know that it has been burning through there pretty quickly. Will be interesting to see how it comes out. . .
Aggie95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
that area might be one that doesn't align with "herd immunity" if you have a lot of new people coming over the border, etc.
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
beerad12man said:

AggieSarah01 said:

Unfortunately here in NM we are still sitting at .8% because we've been locked down for so long. Still no indoor dining. Talking about online schools until January.
So dumb. We have to travel through New Mexico on our way to Utah(Moab, Arches/Canyonlands) in a couple of weeks. We were going to see the cave. Now, we are just able to drive straight through. Stay at our hotel. Can't even go out due to the 2 week quarantine. Maybe we'll order a pizza and get drunk at the marriott. IDK. Just a means to get to Utah.

In fairness, if the death rate is 0.25% like some suggest, NM might be closer to 13% than 0.8%, FWIW. And like the site above says, maybe 8%. That would be about a .4% death rate.
Great trip, hope you get to enjoy everything out west. We did that a couple of years ago so let me know if you have any questions.

Please post while you are traveling, been watching your crusade on Kung Flu Covid19 (forgot which board I'm on).
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie95 said:

that area might be one that doesn't align with "herd immunity" if you have a lot of new people coming over the border, etc.
Yeah, that's a concern.

But still, if your population has a lot of immunity within it, it still won't have the hosts to spread through in theory. So it should, at worst, see a small, isolated spike in some spots, but then die out overall. Again, in theory.

Another reason to control immigration. Not to turn it political, but at least for now we need to strengthen this.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks! Will do. The good news is that Utah is so spread out and everything we want to do is outdoors. So it should be the best place to stay away from covid!
AggieSarah01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HotardAg07 said:

AggieSarah01 said:

Unfortunately here in NM we are still sitting at .8% because we've been locked down for so long. Still no indoor dining. Talking about online schools until January.
This model estimates NM is really at 8.2%
https://covid19-projections.com/us-nm

Recorded cases do not accurately reflect total infections.


Oh good. I hope that's correct. They test so much around here that I thought it might be pretty accurate.
RGV AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Valley numbers, in my opinion, can't really be trusted in this deal as the testing, then reporting are all over the place. Also, from what I understand lots of positive cases are being recorded here without actual testing, just based on diagnosis of a doc. From what I understand this was allowed at the start of this deal and has continued in practice down here.

The cross border traffic is a small fraction of what it once was so that number is really low.

From watching the hysteria first hand, what I believe affected the stats in the RGV is that testing exploded in late May through early July. Hospitals were very sparsely filled until the testing ramp up.
Keegan99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Border counties in Texas, Arizona, and California are, generally speaking, the worst in the US outside of the NYC metro area.

tysker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From the T Bedford Twitter thread:
Quote:

Thus, I believe the substantial epidemics in Arizona, Florida and Texas will leave enough immunity to assist in keeping COVID-19 controlled. However, this level of immunity is not compatible with a full return to societal behavior as existed before the pandemic
We cannot go back as before. More people are going to work from home for quite a while. Commerce in many places has been completely wiped out; there's no where to go. People will likely wash hands more and shake hands less for quite a while. As states Youyang Gu it's very hard disentangle immunity effects and societal behavioral changes. Both will eventually work to get us through this pandemic its the speed and effectiveness that is being questioned.

I find frustrating these people that feel the need to disclose they are not health experts. This is no longer a health issue but a math problem. The medical side has been figured out pretty well considering.
Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

We cannot go back as before. More people are going to work from home for quite a while. Commerce in many places has been completely wiped out; there's no where to go.

beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tysker said:

From the T Bedford Twitter thread:
Quote:

Thus, I believe the substantial epidemics in Arizona, Florida and Texas will leave enough immunity to assist in keeping COVID-19 controlled. However, this level of immunity is not compatible with a full return to societal behavior as existed before the pandemic
We cannot go back as before. More people are going to work from home for quite a while. Commerce in many places has been completely wiped out; there's no where to go. People will likely wash hands more and shake hands less for quite a while. As states Youyang Gu it's very hard disentangle immunity effects and societal behavioral changes. Both will eventually work to get us through this pandemic its the speed and effectiveness that is being questioned.

I find frustrating these people that feel the need to disclose they are not health experts. This is no longer a health issue but a math problem. The medical side has been figured out pretty well considering.
I'm going to go back to normal 100% at some point. Don't care what others do. I get that some might work from home, but that's not a big deal so long as productivity doesn't fall. I've been shaking hands pretty regularly, at least among my friends and family. I guess strangers not as much, but I hated doing that anyways so that doesn't matter to me.

Heck, I'm almost at normal now other than wearing a mask and feeling a bit restricted on our vacation this year (we are going to Utah, but having to bypass Carlsbad Cavern due to quarantine in NM). Going to the lake every weekend. Golf once a week. Work 45-50 hours a week. Usually having 6-8 person get togethers weekly with the neighbors. etc. Some might think I'm a monster for all that. Stay home unless you absolutely have to get out! I don't care.

But like I've said for a while, as a society, you are right in that we won't return to complete normalcy for a while. Some maybe ever, that's on them. I still think this is what the vaccine is for mostly. By the time we get a vaccine, some think this thing might be all but gone. I know that's controversial, but I tend to think that as well. Lasting immunity seems possible. A pre-existing immunity means we may be closer than realized. This is one strand that doesn't tend to mutate the main attacking protein source. So it's actually conceivable humans could beat this thing on their own without a vaccine in the next 6-9 months. Either way, at the very least, the vaccine might speed up people getting over the fear. So it's obvious getting one is better than not no matter what.

Enough high risk and elderly will socially distance for the foreseeable future. Enough people will still voluntarily wear masks. Beyond that, I think we are at a tipping point where restrictions can be taken off and we run little to no chance of overwhelming the hospital systems here in Texas(other than maybe near the borders)

NASAg03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beerad12man said:

AggieSarah01 said:

Unfortunately here in NM we are still sitting at .8% because we've been locked down for so long. Still no indoor dining. Talking about online schools until January.
So dumb. We have to travel through New Mexico on our way to Utah(Moab, Arches/Canyonlands) in a couple of weeks. We were going to see the cave. Now, we are just able to drive straight through. Stay at our hotel. Can't even go out due to the 2 week quarantine. Maybe we'll order a pizza and get drunk at the marriott. IDK. Just a means to get to Utah.

In fairness, if the death rate is 0.25% like some suggest, NM might be closer to 13% than 0.8%, FWIW. And like the site above says, maybe 8%. That would be about a .4% death rate.
My brother just road tripped from Austin to here in Colorado, and stayed one night in Roswell NM. He didn't have to quarantine. He also made a few stops in Santa Fe to visit a few breweries.
Mike Shaw - Class of '03
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think it's easy to enforce, but technically you are supposed to. So we are just going to play by the rules. At first, we were going to get up at about 4am and drive to Carlsbad so we could get there around noon, then spend half a day in the Caverns.

Instead, we are now going to drive further into Albuquerque, so we have less driving the 2nd day to Moab. 4 more hours in Utah on day 2. Not a big deal. Then we head to Estes Park for a few days, then complete the circle back through Palo duro.
Keegan99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Another interesting "experiment".




Blaine County, Idaho burned out. It didn't get a second wave.
Keegan99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Blaine also had a really low IFR. Possibly as a function of demographics and overall health.
RGV AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Keegan:

Understood. But the thing that is misleading when looking at the borders numbers, and in particular on a per 1M of population metric is that in the case of Cameron and Hidalgo counties, the largest number of the truly adjoined population lives on the Mexican side.

Hidalgo County population for last year was like 868,000, directly across on the Mexican side from McAllen lies a city with about 1.2 million residents, and in the adjoining municipalities another 500K easy. Cameron county has a population of 425,000. Across from the Brownsville/Harlingen area there is another 1 million folks on the Mexican side, easy.

The municipalities on the Mexican side from Hidalgo Co area are reporting about 4,800 cases and from Brownsville about 4,500. Even if those numbers are doubled due to the lack of testing the numbers for the whole area, combined, are not that bad if I am reading things correctly when you factor in the entire true number of people in the area.

What you do have on the border is a very fat, out of shape and unhealthy population, on both sides. Lots of diabetes and hypertension, not to mention breathing issues too. Starr county Texas, don't know about now, had in the past the highest per capita incidence of diabetes in the United States, and across the border it was worse.

In California, across from San Diego and across from San Luis Rio Colorado, Yuma, there is going to be a lot of the same issues as the the Rio Grande Valley. Except in those areas the population is a lot more fluid in movement than in the RGV. The RGV just has bigger numbers.

Also, every Jose, Paco, or Maria that is a dual citizen and or permanent resident that lives in Mexico, an there are probably in the low hundreds of thousands that do, that gets sick is coming to the US. Again, these are people with US status so it is not wets flooding the hospitals or folks on tourist visas.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Check out this tread on T-Cell immunity. https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3130736

A new paper out of Cell studied T-cell activity of people that were exposed to the COVID virus, but never developed symptoms. They had significant T-Cell reactivity, meaning that, you could live with someone that had COVID, have a very mild infection, never get enough antibodies to show up in a test, the antibodies go away after a couple of weeks, and now you are immune.

In that study, they also looked at the blood of blood donors from before the virus hit the country they were testing (Sweeden). The study showed that 28% of patients that could never have been exposed to COVID already have a good immune response.

Layman's terms, we are likely massively under-counting immunity when we are looking at these populations. We won't know for sure until we start testing everyone for the proper T-Cells, but I'm not sure if that is financially feasible.

This also greatly explains the behavior or the disease curve. If we detect 20% of people that have had the disease, but 25% - 30% of the population are already immune, and we are missing another 20% of the population that were asymptomatic, have T-cell responses, but never had tests done while they had antibody in the system, than 20% measured immunity could actually be closer to 70% immunity.

Still some speculation here, but if there are a lot more people out there that are immune to this disease than we think, it would explain the behavior of the disease pretty uniformly, and also point to a pretty quick end to this thing worldwide.

I would love to see a broad sampling of people from somewhere like NYC or Blaine City to see the percentage of the population with active T-Cell response.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
RGV AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That makes a ton of sense.

My wife was positive, only symptom was loss of taste and smell for about 2 days. On the day she got diagnosed I lost my taste of smell and taste too. We quarantined together, and isolated from my dad that lives with us and is very frail. Daughter never had one symptom, and we stayed away from her too.

Dad tested negative twice these past two weeks. Wife tested negative. Nobody missed a beat except the PIA of dealing with it.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BusterAg said:

Check out this tread on T-Cell immunity. https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3130736

A new paper out of Cell studied T-cell activity of people that were exposed to the COVID virus, but never developed symptoms. They had significant T-Cell reactivity, meaning that, you could live with someone that had COVID, have a very mild infection, never get enough antibodies to show up in a test, the antibodies go away after a couple of weeks, and now you are immune.

In that study, they also looked at the blood of blood donors from before the virus hit the country they were testing (Sweeden). The study showed that 28% of patients that could never have been exposed to COVID already have a good immune response.

Layman's terms, we are likely massively under-counting immunity when we are looking at these populations. We won't know for sure until we start testing everyone for the proper T-Cells, but I'm not sure if that is financially feasible.

This also greatly explains the behavior or the disease curve. If we detect 20% of people that have had the disease, but 25% - 30% of the population are already immune, and we are missing another 20% of the population that were asymptomatic, have T-cell responses, but never had tests done while they had antibody in the system, than 20% measured immunity could actually be closer to 70% immunity.

Still some speculation here, but if there are a lot more people out there that are immune to this disease than we think, it would explain the behavior of the disease pretty uniformly, and also point to a pretty quick end to this thing worldwide.

I would love to see a broad sampling of people from somewhere like NYC or Blaine City to see the percentage of the population with active T-Cell response.
I sincerely hope this is all correct! It makes a tons of sense with the behavior of the virus and graphs. More so than just simply masks, ending protests, or closing bars were the answer. There are so many variables, but 15-20% prevalence in a community seems to be the only thing consistent.

It also means this thing is damn contagious and works its way into just about everyone anywhere close.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, I think in we find out later that this thing is way more contagious than we thought, but easily identified by a lot more people than we expected.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
DadHammer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
100% Agree
The Big12Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keegan99 said:

Another interesting "experiment".




Blaine County, Idaho burned out. It didn't get a second wave.
I guess it was just delayed

https://www.co.blaine.id.us/DocumentCenter/View/13171/Dashboard-11-5-2020?bidId=

KlinkerAg11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think Covid is showing signs of seasonality.
AggieFlyboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Big12Ag said:

Keegan99 said:

Another interesting "experiment".




Blaine County, Idaho burned out. It didn't get a second wave.
I guess it was just delayed

https://www.co.blaine.id.us/DocumentCenter/View/13171/Dashboard-11-5-2020?bidId=


Not really, https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spread-map/state/idaho/county/blaine-county
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.