Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Forogil]

Herd Immunity with a Vaccine is smart.

Vaccines are normally not 100% effective.
If the vaccine is only 20% effective - does that mean that it is only 20% smart?

However, more importantly - the entire premise is mistaken: flu vaccinations don't really aim for herd immunity, they aim to protect the most vulnerable.

[PhaelixWW]

Both sars and mers just disapeared out of the radar, hopefully we know why sars disapeared, he started to loose genetic material before he disapeared.

Again, MERS had an R0 under 1 to begin with, and SARS was contained because it couldn't hide and infect the same way that SARS-CoV-2 does. They're not analogous.

I was wron, has much as you are, it was Luna 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_1

A US scientist did it two years earlier, in 1957.

There is a portuguese book calle ''Os Lusiadas'' read and you might get inside the mind of a XVI century guy.

For those people, venturing outside europe was pretty much impossible if it wasn't the mind of some people like Henry the Navigator.

Your use of "pretty much impossible" here is hardly the same thing as defying scientific fact. I don't know why you keep making these poor comparisons.

Then let's trust in the scientists work.

I mean... that's literally what I've been saying all along.

Well, aren't you that claimed for science?

I don't even understand what you mean by this...

[szechuan]

However, more importantly - the entire premise is mistaken: flu vaccinations don't really aim for herd immunity, they aim to protect the most vulnerable.

That is False.

Not only do Vaccines aim to protect the most vulnerable but, Vaccines also aim for Herd Immunity that is a known fact in the Medical Scientific Community.

[PhaelixWW]

Not even close.
People could wear masks, lock themselves down and practice social distancing to minimize flu infections and deaths.
But they didn't.

How many times are you going to repeat this stupid, tired argument? Lockdowns would never, ever be recommended for the flu. The R0 for the flu is already low.

But getting a yearly flu shot and practicing social distancing would cause flu deaths to drastically, drastically lower.

- - - Updated - - -

Vaccines are normally not 100% effective.
If the vaccine is only 20% effective - does that mean that it is only 20% smart?

The flu vaccine is less than 100% effective because there are multiple strains of the flu that go around in any given flu season. They try to guess which one is going to be the worst and make a vaccine for that one. But it still leaves people open to other, perhaps more newly-mutated strains.

Conversely, a coronavirus vaccine would likely be nearly 100% effective, as there's only the one antibody necessary for the coronavirus... so far. Unless we achieve sufficient seasonal mutation to require different antibodies for different strains of the coronavirus, then we shouldn't have to worry about the hypothetical future vaccine's efficacy.

However, more importantly - the entire premise is mistaken: flu vaccinations don't really aim for herd immunity, they aim to protect the most vulnerable.

Also not true, otherwise only the vulnerable would get a flu shot.

On the contrary, doctors always urge everyone to get a flu shot, primarily to provide secondary herd immunity protection to the people who are vulnerable but either don't or can't get a flu shot. In fact, for some people with compromised immunity, even a flu shot that approached 100% efficacy would potentially be incapable of rendering the person immune, so the only thing that would end up protecting them would be herd immunity.

[Shadowferal]

Just curious how long the "We must stay locked down" folks think we should stay locked down?

You won't get answer. They thought the cartoon ad that joked "self-quarantine until we cure death" was in poor taste...likely because that's precisely what they themselves appear to be.

[Grapemask]

You won't get answer. They thought the cartoon ad that joked "self-quarantine until we cure death" was in poor taste...likely because that's precisely what they themselves appear to be.

I mean, the answer is pretty clear. Until we've reduced the infection rate such that our healthcare system can handle it being fully open. This is what everyone is saying. What's aggravating is when this plain and simple logic is ignored so that people can make strawmen arguments against lockdown.

[Masark]

until we've reduced the infection rate such that our healthcare system can handle it being fully open. This is what everyone is saying.

buuut how long will that take?!?!? I have a haircut appointment!!!!

[Shadowferal]

I mean, the answer is pretty clear. Until we've reduced the infection rate such that our healthcare system can handle it being fully open. This is what everyone is saying. What's aggravating is when this plain and simple logic is ignored so that people can make strawmen arguments against lockdown.

Fine.
Then answer how long is too long?
No vagaries. No ambiguities.
Because politicians already recognize the summer will be a problem. And we ain't talking deaths. Corpses can't vote.

[announced]

Well luckily now that some businesses are open we have some exclusive footage of people now getting their haircuts while practicing social distancing. See the video below.

[Corvus]

Seems like China attempts to bully Australia through trade have failed - a coalition of 116 nations have now formed behind Australia's proposal for an inquiry into the origins and handling of covid-19, all without China being mentioned. It isn't just the EU, which helped draft the proposal with Australia, but 50 African nations and Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Russia, South Africa and the United Kingdom. That gives it a majority which means the inquiry will go ahead, despite China's vehement opposition.

I was not expecting Russia to back it, but the biggest surprise is that the USA isn't.

[Endus]

Last time I checked, life didn't evolve being under a lockdown.

True.

It evolved where humans lived in small nomadic family groups with only occasional contact between groups, and disease outbreaks would generally either not be serious enough to pose an issue (like the common cold), or killed off the family group and then died out from lack of any further vectors to infect and be carried to new targets.

This is why uncontacted tribal groups still living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle are often so vulnerable to outside diseases, even if the carriers are able to handle them. Their immune systems were never challenged regularly by such threats, in the first place, because the lack of dense population provides little ground for pandemics to even occur.

They were social distancing by default.

[Forogil]

That is False.

Not only do Vaccines aim to protect the most vulnerable but, Vaccines also aim for Herd Immunity that is a known fact in the Medical Scientific Community.

Herd immunity matters for vaccines used against some diseases.

Consider MMR-vaccine, it's not 100% effective, but enough to give herd immunity for measles, mumps and rubella. That has caused the disease to practically disappear (in countries that use them), the US is concerned that reduction in measles vaccination now cause 1,000 cases yearly up from a few hundred.
Before vaccine there were about 500,000 cases yearly in the US.

That dramatic reduction is due to herd immunity because it stops the spread of the disease, and you don't see that reduction in the flu due to flu vaccine.

[Forogil]

The flu vaccine is less than 100% effective because there are multiple strains of the flu that go around in any given flu season. They try to guess which one is going to be the worst and make a vaccine for that one. But it still leaves people open to other, perhaps more newly-mutated strains.

Let's list the errors:
1. Vaccines are often less than 100% effective for a number of other reasons, that's just how it works, e.g. MMR-vaccine is about 90% effective.
2. The normal flu shot in the US contains a vaccine against three or four strains, not one; so that's not the primary reason https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/keyfacts.htm
Sometimes, like 2018, the effectiveness is only 10% against one of the strains - but numbers around 50% are normal - when looking at the right strains. (The above might be a bit inaccurate in terms of terminology - some claim it's two or three strains and one influenza B-lineage.)

Conversely, a coronavirus vaccine would likely be nearly 100% effective, as there's only the one antibody necessary for the coronavirus... so far. Unless we achieve sufficient seasonal mutation to require different antibodies for different strains of the coronavirus, then we shouldn't have to worry about the hypothetical future vaccine's efficacy.

3. Even if it didn't mutate we normally don't even see 100% efficacy, and:
4. What matters in the real world is vaccine effectiveness not vaccine efficacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_efficacy
(And technically the anti-body tests for covid-19 are not 100% accurate, and there are two different antibody tests due to how the immune system works.)

Also not true, otherwise only the vulnerable would get a flu shot.

On the contrary, doctors always urge everyone to get a flu shot, primarily to provide secondary herd immunity protection to the people who are vulnerable but either don't or can't get a flu shot.

In some countries flu shots are recommended for the general population, in others not. Note: WHO does not recommend it - https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fac...nza-(seasonal)
There are benefits for everyone in getting vaccinated - as they don't get sick in a country with limited number of sick days.
However, what matters for herd immunity is whether enough get vaccinated and how good the vaccine is - not if everyone is urged to get vaccinated.

5. And vaccination in the US isn't universal, and therefore the herd immunity threshold isn't reached (about 45% of adults got a flu shot, and the vaccines don't even have 90% efficacy). https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/c...9estimates.htm
That's why we see lots of deaths during each flu season, so having a vaccine doesn't magically prevent the deaths - it actually has to work, and people needs to get vaccinated - and we don't care enough about that.

Even among the elderly the flu vaccination rates varies a lot between different countries - https://www.statista.com/chart/16575...on-rates-vary/
Germany at 35%, the US at 69% and S. Korea at 82%.

[Skulltaker]

Most people I know would prefer being locked down for a few months, maybe even a year, to a pedestrian vehicular death or permanent disability.
Yet they accept the risk and live their lives.

This dumb argument again, comparing an infectious disease to exposing yourself to traffic. Nice to see something consistent in these times, namely that you cannot argue to save your life.

Last time I checked, life didn't evolve being under a lockdown.

That's very wrong. Life continuously evolves and adapts to circumstances, which would include lockdown, if it lasted long enough to have an impact. Since evolution takes dozens of generations, that's unlikely to happen.

[Forogil]

If we didn't get vaccinated at my job, how many of the residents do you think would die?

If they are elderly, likely a lot (even if they get vaccinated as the vaccine isn't 100% effective), but that isn't herd immunity.

Herd immunity refers to vaccinating almost everyone in society as a whole, not merely health-care workers, to stop the disease from spreading in society as a whole.

An interesting variant for the flu (not relevant for covid-19) is to immunize young children to reduce the overall spread https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/season...ion-strategies

[Forogil]

If everyone in society was vaccinated against the flu we would see a lot less deaths from that.

That is likely true.

However, for some reason we don't - and instead choose to let hundred of thousands die yearly in the flu in rich countries, despite having a vaccine.

I assume there are good reasons for that.

[szechuan]

Herd immunity matters for vaccines used against some diseases.

And it clearly still matters for the Flu.

[MCMLXXXII]

.



Also not true, otherwise only the vulnerable would get a flu shot.

On the contrary, doctors always urge everyone to get a flu shot, primarily to provide secondary herd immunity protection to the people who are vulnerable but either don't or can't get a flu shot. In fact, for some people with compromised immunity, even a flu shot that approached 100% efficacy would potentially be incapable of rendering the person immune, so the only thing that would end up protecting them would be herd immunity.

Dont know the situation in the US but over here only the vulnerable get a yearly flu shot.

[Forogil]

And it clearly still matters for the Flu.

Immunity itself matters, but in what matter does herd immunity clearly matter for the flu, except as something that we don't care about?

WHO does not recommend vaccination to reach HIT, and most countries don't bother vaccinating the general population - and the ones that bother, don't care enough to actually reach the herd immunity threshold?

[szechuan]

Immunity itself matters, but in what matter does herd immunity clearly matter for the flu, except as something that we don't care about?

You may not, but Americans and Australians Clearly do.