I'm not one that has been too concerned about covid, and was really latching onto the theory that more or less herd immunity can be achieved at 10-20%, and once places had their first wave, they'd basically be done. North Texas is definitely having a significant 2nd wave, as are other locations. How does this change that low threshold immunity theory?
Is the 10-20% Immunity Theory Busted?
6,249 Views |
78 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Capitol Ag
pretty much imo
this thing is clearly more transmissible now
this thing is clearly more transmissible now
The doomers and the optimists have both been wrong, and it looks like the sober experts have been closest to correct.
Hopefully the vaccine rolls out smoothly and we don't have to argue any more about this by springtime.
Hopefully the vaccine rolls out smoothly and we don't have to argue any more about this by springtime.
I've heard pieces of the theory, from Keegan99 I think but never saw the intro to the theory, the why its a theory to begin with part.
For some 10-20% immunity to work, as I understand it R Naught would have to be really low under normal circumstances, barely above 1. And that's not the case with a R naught higher than the flu
For some 10-20% immunity to work, as I understand it R Naught would have to be really low under normal circumstances, barely above 1. And that's not the case with a R naught higher than the flu
what do the sober experts say about schools?
that's my top line
that's my top line
cone said:
what do the sober experts say about schools?
that's my top line
Unanimous that schools need to stay open. CDC, Fauci, all agree.
This NPR article talks about international and American studies that show extremely low transmission rates https://www.npr.org/2020/10/21/925794511/were-the-risks-of-reopening-schools-exaggerated
The only reason schools are still closed- anywhere - is not science, it's pressure from teachers (and unions, in states with powerful unions) who are either irrationally afraid, unaware of the actual data, or both. NYC just shut down schools because the city hit an arbitrary 3% positivity rate threshold even though the infection rate in NYC schools has been .023 since they opened.
the sun belt kinda sorta worked through it during the summer so it wasn't like lockdowns abated anything and there was a normal epi curve
estimated 20% of the population got it so that's where the theory kinda rooted
but either we're seeing a ton of reinfections or this is getting into places it wasn't before generally in places that had significant outbreaks already and that would make you think it's not just the social activity that's different but the ease of transmission in and of itself. spreading farther, higher attack rates.
personally with the vaccines ready to roll (a relatively short term plannable event), it seems reasonable to throw more money at the problem and lockdown to shift the spread farther into the future. but I'm just a reformed doomer.
estimated 20% of the population got it so that's where the theory kinda rooted
but either we're seeing a ton of reinfections or this is getting into places it wasn't before generally in places that had significant outbreaks already and that would make you think it's not just the social activity that's different but the ease of transmission in and of itself. spreading farther, higher attack rates.
personally with the vaccines ready to roll (a relatively short term plannable event), it seems reasonable to throw more money at the problem and lockdown to shift the spread farther into the future. but I'm just a reformed doomer.
That they should mostly be open. And that bars, restaurants and gyms should be closed.
We'll get a vaccine before we get coordinated policy though.
We'll get a vaccine before we get coordinated policy though.
Check out the very tail of the 7 day moving average. Its headed straight up. Never seen it do that before.
wish the Times had been saying that in August
Yes, the 10-20% Herd Immunity was obvious B.S. from the beginning. Never made any sense. People looking to avoid mitigation efforts and trying to fit curves and mathematics without taking into account the affect of human behavior at lowering peaks and flattening curves.
I think it was the Nobel chemist out of Stanford (Michael Levitt) that declared all of this would be over by August 25th and then tried to move the goal post with the Excessive Deaths argument before finally no longer being taken seriously after leading so many down a false path without any expert credentials in epidemiology, medicine, public health or infectious disease. Now it's Scott Atlas's turn to do the same with the Natural Herd Immunity Plan. Truly sad!
I think it was the Nobel chemist out of Stanford (Michael Levitt) that declared all of this would be over by August 25th and then tried to move the goal post with the Excessive Deaths argument before finally no longer being taken seriously after leading so many down a false path without any expert credentials in epidemiology, medicine, public health or infectious disease. Now it's Scott Atlas's turn to do the same with the Natural Herd Immunity Plan. Truly sad!
but it wasn't just human behavior
Florida went through their summer curve without a lot of mitigation, so it's not just that level of adherence.
Europe didn't just go from months of nothing remarkable to where they've been in the last month because they decided it was over and dropped all precaution.
something else is going on IMO
whatever that something is clearly calls for a return to stricter NPI, but it's a different outbreak now compared to the summer transmission.
and personally I think it's showing how ineffective masking (at least the typical masks you see being used) is in enclosed public spaces. it might help but I think it's being overpowered by the seasonal changes.
Florida went through their summer curve without a lot of mitigation, so it's not just that level of adherence.
Europe didn't just go from months of nothing remarkable to where they've been in the last month because they decided it was over and dropped all precaution.
something else is going on IMO
whatever that something is clearly calls for a return to stricter NPI, but it's a different outbreak now compared to the summer transmission.
and personally I think it's showing how ineffective masking (at least the typical masks you see being used) is in enclosed public spaces. it might help but I think it's being overpowered by the seasonal changes.
I still don't see how 10 - 20% is suppose to cause us to reach herd immunity.
Is it just a projection from some numbers with a large mix of variables in one place but with no theoretical reasoning why it should work?
Is it just a projection from some numbers with a large mix of variables in one place but with no theoretical reasoning why it should work?
you would think 20% immunity would slow it down, make future more shallow, maybe even shorter
that doesn't appear to be what we're seeing so far
that doesn't appear to be what we're seeing so far
cone said:
you would think 20% immunity would slow it down, make future more shallow, maybe even shorter
that doesn't appear to be what we're seeing so far
This thing has a high R naught under normal circumstances and every little bit counts. Social distancing, masks wash hands...etc but just 20% immunity isn't going to stop it
If that was the theory then its a bad theory. That was never going to work
amercer said:
That they should mostly be open. And that bars, restaurants and gyms should be closed.
We'll get a vaccine before we get coordinated policy though.
Yes let's close gyms and yoga studios in winter, something definitively known to boost the immune system, to fight a virus, something known to attack the immune system.
And let's close all social outlets like bars and restaurants, increasing stress and loneliness, both of which suppress the immune system, to fight against a virus.
And while we're at it, let's tell people to stay inside out of the sun, resulting in reduced vitamin D levels, to fight a virus.
Wear a mask, making everyone paranoid and angry and frustrating natural socialization, even though there's no definitive proof masks do anything at a public level.
The world response has been completely the opposite of what we should be doing.
* Exercise
* Go outside in the sun
* Socialize
* Eat healthy
* Take fish oil
* Reduce sugar consumption
I thought the 20% theory was based on the idea that maybe 50% of the population was already resistant to it so if 20% got it and 50% were resistant you would see a dramatic slow down in cases.
I think they greatly overestimated how many people were naturally resistant to Covid 19.... it's probably in the low single digits as a percentage of the population from the spikes we are seeing.
I think they greatly overestimated how many people were naturally resistant to Covid 19.... it's probably in the low single digits as a percentage of the population from the spikes we are seeing.
Dad said:
I thought the 20% theory was based on the idea that maybe 50% of the population was already resistant to it so if 20% got it and 50% were resistant you would see a dramatic slow down in cases.
I think they greatly overestimated how many people were naturally resistant to Covid 19.... it's probably in the low single digits as a percentage of the population from the spikes we are seeing.
That makes more sense though I'm not sure why 50% would be resistant unless they're counting stuff like type O blood, and female which are more resistant than males to dying
But I don't think that necessarily means they won't spread it or spread it less
Levitt said the China model would apply to the world, and a few here ate up everything he said.AgE Doc said:
Yes, the 10-20% Herd Immunity was obvious B.S. from the beginning. Never made any sense. People looking to avoid mitigation efforts and trying to fit curves and mathematics without taking into account the affect of human behavior at lowering peaks and flattening curves.
I think it was the Nobel chemist out of Stanford (Michael Levitt) that declared all of this would be over by August 25th and then tried to move the goal post with the Excessive Deaths argument before finally no longer being taken seriously after leading so many down a false path without any expert credentials in epidemiology, medicine, public health or infectious disease. Now it's Scott Atlas's turn to do the same with the Natural Herd Immunity Plan. Truly sad!
I do think people have a natural inclination to not want to deal with this, or any fear, and I get buying that optimism - but it didn't make much sense.
I know they say that people that got SARS are more likely to be resistant to it but that's probably not a big number of people in our country. I think these 20% theorists were thinking that recent exposure to other coronaviruses might make you resistant and less likely to get Covid.jamey said:Dad said:
I thought the 20% theory was based on the idea that maybe 50% of the population was already resistant to it so if 20% got it and 50% were resistant you would see a dramatic slow down in cases.
I think they greatly overestimated how many people were naturally resistant to Covid 19.... it's probably in the low single digits as a percentage of the population from the spikes we are seeing.
That makes more sense though I'm not sure why 50% would be resistant unless they're counting stuff like type O blood, and female which are more resistant than males to dying
But I don't think that necessarily means they won't spread it
I think they came up with the theory because of all these people that were exposed a bunch and never got sick. I have a relative that had it recently and their spouse slept in the same bed and never distanced in any way and never got sick.
jamey said:
I still don't see how 10 - 20% is suppose to cause us to reach herd immunity.
Is it just a projection from some numbers with a large mix of variables in one place but with no theoretical reasoning why it should work?
It was scientists getting out of their lane and twitter blowhards cherry picking data, posting some charts and saying see?!?
Dad said:I know they say that people that got SARS are more likely to be resistant to it but that's probably not a big number of people in our country. I think these 20% theorists were thinking that recent exposure to other coronaviruses might make you resistant and less likely to get Covid.jamey said:Dad said:
I thought the 20% theory was based on the idea that maybe 50% of the population was already resistant to it so if 20% got it and 50% were resistant you would see a dramatic slow down in cases.
I think they greatly overestimated how many people were naturally resistant to Covid 19.... it's probably in the low single digits as a percentage of the population from the spikes we are seeing.
That makes more sense though I'm not sure why 50% would be resistant unless they're counting stuff like type O blood, and female which are more resistant than males to dying
But I don't think that necessarily means they won't spread it
I think they came up with the theory because of all these people that were exposed a bunch and never got sick. I have a relative that had it recently and their spouse slept in the same bed and never distanced in any way and never got sick.
I see what you're saying but I think its a bit of a leap to assume that means they don't spread it, which is what would be required for what we're talking about.
well clearly the summer first waves never approached 50% prevalence and the distancing wasn't fundamentally different than what we're seeing now in many respects (within the sun belt)
I think we're hitting the peak infectious seasonality, whatever that means (personal bias being enhanced fluid dynamics but who knows)
I think we're hitting the peak infectious seasonality, whatever that means (personal bias being enhanced fluid dynamics but who knows)
why would closing bars mean people don't get more sun?
I think were a long ways from 50%
yes, so the question is why did the summer peaks not go higher? why did we undershoot rather than overshoot? will we get a lower peak compared to summer in the sun belt or has the transmission mechanism fundamentally changed?
with regard to immunity, Houston went through the peak in August. is 3-4 months immunity durable enough to make this peak lower or is the condition of the air going to make the R0 go crazy now?
with regard to immunity, Houston went through the peak in August. is 3-4 months immunity durable enough to make this peak lower or is the condition of the air going to make the R0 go crazy now?
Why would you expect the summer months to peak higher? And higher than what? How high is the ah-ha moment? People were working from home, some places were in various stages of shutdown, people were dying and some such as myself with a wife and parents at high risk took preventative measures.
And all of this during the summer when these viruses tend to slow down anyway. I've said dozens of times on this site its likely to spike in the fall/winter months like the flu. Thats even part of the models
And all of this during the summer when these viruses tend to slow down anyway. I've said dozens of times on this site its likely to spike in the fall/winter months like the flu. Thats even part of the models
As far as Houston, I'm not sure what you mean by 3-4 months
But I took my money mostly out of the market a month or so ago. I will put it back in when the **** hits the fan.
But I took my money mostly out of the market a month or so ago. I will put it back in when the **** hits the fan.
good luck to you profiting off all thisjamey said:
As far as Houston, I'm not sure what you mean by 3-4 months
But I took my money mostly out of the market a month or so ago. I will put it back in when the **** hits the fan.
The Big12Ag said:good luck to you profiting off all thisjamey said:
As far as Houston, I'm not sure what you mean by 3-4 months
But I took my money mostly out of the market a month or so ago. I will put it back in when the **** hits the fan.
Part preservation, part profit. Looking at the numbers I'm leaning more towards profit.
Point being science is a tool. I dont see how this isn't going to be bad. Lots of things lining up against
us as far as the virus goes.
And unless there's a stimulus, and the fed jumps in...etc, it looks like a rough winter to me
It was always bull**** that basically tried to boil down the rate of transmission to a single variable. But so many on here wanted it to be true for selfish and political reasons... All critical thinking went out the window and everybody wanted to praise whatever bull**** artist made ****ty excel graphs on twitter that posters would rush to post over here and create an echo chamber. It didn't help that people repeated over and over again that this would be a problem until "November 3rd" as if it's some grand conspiracy.
The good news, we'll all get a vaccine in February, March, or April and as long as we don't turn into a country of anti-vaxers this will all be over then. The bad news, it's going to be an awful few months... And the more we deny that and become complacent, the worse this will be. I'm not advocating for a "shut down" (which is a ridiculous term anyways), but thoughtful, personal responsibility. If you are not an at risk individual, doesn't mean it doesn't matter if you get sick... Or how you get sick (how many interactions you have). How we choose to handle these next few months will likely be the difference between 400k and 500k dead when it's all said and done. Be a responsible adult for those you can and can't see.
The good news, we'll all get a vaccine in February, March, or April and as long as we don't turn into a country of anti-vaxers this will all be over then. The bad news, it's going to be an awful few months... And the more we deny that and become complacent, the worse this will be. I'm not advocating for a "shut down" (which is a ridiculous term anyways), but thoughtful, personal responsibility. If you are not an at risk individual, doesn't mean it doesn't matter if you get sick... Or how you get sick (how many interactions you have). How we choose to handle these next few months will likely be the difference between 400k and 500k dead when it's all said and done. Be a responsible adult for those you can and can't see.
Gordo14 said:
I'm not advocating for a "shut down" (which is a ridiculous term anyways), but thoughtful, personal responsibility. If you are not an at risk individual, doesn't mean it doesn't matter if you get sick... Or how you get sick (how many interactions you have). How we choose to handle these next few months will likely be the difference between 400k and 500k dead when it's all said and done. Be a responsible adult for those you can and can't see.
I agree with that but I also think that would require national leadership to point the masses in the direction of personal responsibility. As you pointed out the whole thing is tainted with politics
My guess, we end up getting local restrictions handed down by local governments as we approach overloading hospitals. Some will react sooner than others. Will some react too late seems to be the question because personal accountability is also wishful thinking imo. Perhaps not but its hard to imagine it happening in this environment
And we have Thanksgiving coming up in days, one of the things I mentioned working against us
This isn't my field at all, and in not that smart, so bear with me.
As I understood it, the idea behind that was that there is a difference between epidemic and endemic herd immunity. But its not lower because some of the population is already immune, but rather it has a tendency to blow through certain groups at different rates.
In epidemic setting, susceptibility is not uniformly distributed among the population, and the disease burns through the most susceptible. I think the argument was susceptibility for a novel disease is based on how connected certain groups are, how exposed to other people they are. for example, cab drivers or first responders are significantly more susceptible than say lumberjacks or WFH office workers. Then after that group gets hit hard, it starts to run out of new hosts for an outbreak and it burns out. Just how differently susceptible populations are determines how low or high the herd immunity threshold was. At least based on the formula they created.
The theory made sense to me as a pure amateur/idiot but I never understood why 20% was the result. I think it was solved for based on European experience, but they had significant NPIs. if you look at the model, it was very sensitive to the CV component, which is the estimate for the difference in susceptibility i believe.
Here is the pre print if you want to read more.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160762v3.full-text
Here's another one that goes a little further and talks about a transient collective immunity, which i think means a short term barrier but not actual herd immunity, which would let it susceptible to other waves. The reason its short term is because the heterogeneity is assumed to decrease over time as fewer people adhere to guidelines and/or guidelines get lifted. And since the threshold is so sensitive to that, it becomes materially higher, and thereby allows another outbreak to occur. At least that's how I read it. So that would bridge all this, in a way. It predicts even the hardest hit areas would eventually become susceptible to another wave of infections, like we are seeing now.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.26.20162420v3.full-text
Curious what other thoughts are, especially where I may have misread or misunderstood.
As I understood it, the idea behind that was that there is a difference between epidemic and endemic herd immunity. But its not lower because some of the population is already immune, but rather it has a tendency to blow through certain groups at different rates.
In epidemic setting, susceptibility is not uniformly distributed among the population, and the disease burns through the most susceptible. I think the argument was susceptibility for a novel disease is based on how connected certain groups are, how exposed to other people they are. for example, cab drivers or first responders are significantly more susceptible than say lumberjacks or WFH office workers. Then after that group gets hit hard, it starts to run out of new hosts for an outbreak and it burns out. Just how differently susceptible populations are determines how low or high the herd immunity threshold was. At least based on the formula they created.
The theory made sense to me as a pure amateur/idiot but I never understood why 20% was the result. I think it was solved for based on European experience, but they had significant NPIs. if you look at the model, it was very sensitive to the CV component, which is the estimate for the difference in susceptibility i believe.
Here is the pre print if you want to read more.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160762v3.full-text
Here's another one that goes a little further and talks about a transient collective immunity, which i think means a short term barrier but not actual herd immunity, which would let it susceptible to other waves. The reason its short term is because the heterogeneity is assumed to decrease over time as fewer people adhere to guidelines and/or guidelines get lifted. And since the threshold is so sensitive to that, it becomes materially higher, and thereby allows another outbreak to occur. At least that's how I read it. So that would bridge all this, in a way. It predicts even the hardest hit areas would eventually become susceptible to another wave of infections, like we are seeing now.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.26.20162420v3.full-text
Curious what other thoughts are, especially where I may have misread or misunderstood.
Thanks for the response, I'll read thru the links tomorrow
One thing that seems like a mistake at first glance is that this thing has never blown thru any population except perhaps some nursing homes in NY.
Otherwise we've closed things down in one form or another as we approach hospitalization concerns
We never let it go to a point that any given population of succespitbility took the brunt of it, for this theory to take hold as I understand it
One thing that seems like a mistake at first glance is that this thing has never blown thru any population except perhaps some nursing homes in NY.
Otherwise we've closed things down in one form or another as we approach hospitalization concerns
We never let it go to a point that any given population of succespitbility took the brunt of it, for this theory to take hold as I understand it
Heres a Stanford study that shows less than 10% of US has anti-bodies for covid
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/09/few-americans-have-coronavirus-antibodies-study-finds.html
Based on that we're less than half way there to getting the required 20%
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/09/few-americans-have-coronavirus-antibodies-study-finds.html
Based on that we're less than half way there to getting the required 20%
Featured Stories
See All
50:41
6h ago
2.7k
Every game matters as Texas A&M travels to Baton Rouge
by Olin Buchanan
39:10
5h ago
1.7k
Reed Report: JBR Bracketology breaks down A&M's resume metrics
by Luke Evangelist
39:02
7h ago
1.9k