Official Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Vaclac]

Herd immunity is not 6% lmao ... it's like 70-90%.

Ok, this was really my main point all along, 70-90% is just way too high, and based on a totally simplified model. Those high thresholds depend on the assumption that every person infects every other person at exactly the same rate, which is just false. Evidence of superspreaders is enormous, that a tiny proportion of people are responsible for 80%+ of the spread. This fact is simply inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the simple model that gives estimates in the range you provide. This clearly observed heterogeneity has huge implications for the mathematical model of the herd immunity threshold. If you model out its extremely clear, but you don't have to take my word for it - epidemiologists say the very same thing https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v3. Unless of course you think based on no evidence whatsoever that this and the Atlantic article I cited discussing the same paper just must not be "impartial".

There is enough out there including in vaccine work to say that antibodies will not be forever. The fact that you even believe and are still discussing herd immunity for covid is nothing but ignorance. The fact that you would be willing to risk sacrificinig 3 .5+ million in the US to get there is past sociopathic and shows zero empathy for the vulnerable. Go tell you parents and your grandparents what you want to happen before you continue to try and tell strangers. And your post is pretty much a non sequitur to everything before it without the comedic value.

Impartial? Yes... I'm sure you are described that way often by those that know you.

I'll give you more than an abstract. Then you can tell me 60-85% is substantially different than 70-90% but not 6%.

https://theconversation.com/herd-immunity-wont-solve-our-covid-19-problem-139724

The link I gave includes the whole paper as a pdf, so more than an abstract... the article you linked does not even mention this heterogeneity issue and is therefore in no way a rebuttal of it.

But, wow, nice ad hominem attacks. You just know that anyone who disagrees with you is a sociopath who wants millions of people including his parents and grandparents to die.
Turns out that's not actually true and that I do talk to my family often about many things including covid (though all of my grandparents passed away long before covid) and strangely they've never come close to thinking I want them to die or would just not care if they did. I guess you're just a much better and quicker judge of character than they are though.

[Johnny Bball]

Ok, this was really my main point all along, 70-90% is just way too high, and based on a totally simplified model. Those high thresholds depend on the assumption that every person infects every other person at exactly the same rate, which is just false. Evidence of superspreaders is enormous, that a tiny proportion of people are responsible for 80%+ of the spread. This fact is simply inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the simple model that gives estimates in the range you provide. This clearly observed heterogeneity has huge implications for the mathematical model of the herd immunity threshold. If you model out its extremely clear, but you don't have to take my word for it - epidemiologists say the very same thing https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v3. Unless of course you think based on no evidence whatsoever that this and the Atlantic article I cited discussing the same paper just must not be "impartial".

There is enough out there including in vaccine work to say that antibodies will not be forever. The fact that you even believe and are still discussing herd immunity for covid is nothing but ignorance. The fact that you would be willing to risk sacrificinig 3 .5+ million in the US to get there is past sociopathic and shows zero empathy for the vulnerable. Go tell you parents and your grandparents what you want to happen before you continue to try and tell strangers. And your post is pretty much a non sequitur to everything before it without the comedic value.

Impartial? Yes... I'm sure you are described that way often by those that know you.

I'll give you more than an abstract. Then you can tell me 60-85% is substantially different than 70-90% but not 6%.

https://theconversation.com/herd-immunity-wont-solve-our-covid-19-problem-139724

The link I gave includes the whole paper as a pdf, so more than an abstract... the article you linked does not even mention this heterogeneity issue and is therefore in no way a rebuttal of it.

But, wow, nice ad hominem attacks. You just know that anyone who disagrees with you is a sociopath who wants millions of people including his parents and grandparents to die.
Turns out that's not actually true and that I do talk to my family often about many things including covid (though all of my grandparents passed away long before covid) and strangely they've never come close to thinking I want them to die or would just not care if they did. I guess you're just a much better and quicker judge of character than they are though.

How is having no regard or empathy if millions die not sociopathic or worse? It's not an attack, it's pretty factual. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me, it's what your decision would reap if it were yours. Since you've once again you've ignored that herd immunity is impossible, and definitely impossible without millions dead in one country alone, or the percentages required to achieve it, and without any regard for neighboring nations as well, I'll assume I'm done.

(Oh... and if we are discussion the US, there is no good data that would be required for any analysis in the first place once monitoring the data moved from CDC to HHS. But that's another story, or news, I guess.)

And my point was what would your parents and grandparents think if you wanted to take a chance on sacrificing them for your greater goal of winning an online argument. Maybe that wasn't clear... but it really should have been if you worded it as plainly. Glad you're close with your folk, I guess.

I'll go back to the current affairs board where this stuff has been discussed and put to rest too long ago.

[Vaclac]

I have many times stated why I think the herd immunity threshold is far lower than commonly stated. Rather than engage with the actual argument, you have just assumed that the only reason I could possibly think that is that I want millions of people to die. And your point about my parents is just plain false - they (along with many other older relatives including aunts and uncles) know what I think fits the data best and also what just at a theoretical level modeling out heterogeneous populations implies. I expressed these thoughts, and the math behind them, to the people close to me long before sharing them with strangers, so they would never think I "wanted to take a chance on sacrificing them" in order to win an argument. Your assumption that I must want to do that is a gross personal attack, and certainly not factual.

[Fairview4Life]

Good thread on herd immunity.

Read on Twitter

[Vaclac]

Good thread on herd immunity.

Read on Twitter

That is indeed an interesting thread - thanks for sharing it.
It breaks down the current reproduction number in to basically three components, R0, the rate at which the virus would spread if no one had yet gotten it and no social measures had been taken to slow its spread, a factor representing how much reduction in social activity has reduced the transmission rate, and a factor for how much the percentage of the population that is already immune is reducing spread. This is also how I think about the spread of the virus.
It seems to me like he is still assuming the simple model for how spread is reduced by % of people already exposed, where the reduction in infection rate is simply equal to the percentage of the people who have yet gotten it. As I have mentioned now many times I think there are good theoretical reasons why you should expect the reduction to actually be higher because those who have already gotten it are likely be people who interact with more people on average than those who have not yet gotten it, and therefore removing them as potential spreaders once they are immune has a disproportionate effect. So I think he should probably allow that to be a factor that varies in his model and see what fits the data best. I basically did this analysis using just NYC a while ago, which is what led me to take this heterogeneity effect seriously at the time, but of course now that we have lots more data on many places that have had a serious surge, it would be good to see what factor best fits all the data from all those places.

[Kevin Willis]

Good thread on herd immunity.

Read on Twitter

Thanks for that Fairview. There is a goldilock zone depending on how the behaviour of the virus, the societal measure and RT. In order to conatain these need to work in tandom with each other. If the virus becomes more contagious among a certain populace OR the societal measures are not sufficient OR RT shifts in number then the number of cases will change accordingly. Some estimates had 20% of New Yorkers having the antibodies before the curve started to flatten. It all depends on many factors but the one thing we can control is societal measures.

I read an article this morning that the top epidemologist from Sweden, the one that advocated for herd immunity, recently admitted he was wrong. He incorrectly estimated how many people would die from the virus. Apparently one of their politicians was pissed when told he miscalculated. I mean his mistake was not from malice, he should've waited until he had more variables before calculating if it was viable for this virus. If it was SARS it might have worked - but it's not.

[Ackshun]

So... who is sending theirs to school in September?

We have until Aug 12 to decide

[Fairview4Life]

So... who is sending theirs to school in September?

We have until Aug 12 to decide

I’m in NS so not too worried. I just don’t see how things are going to work in fall/winter when every single kid in daycare has to stay home with a runny nose.

[Ackshun]

So... who is sending theirs to school in September?

We have until Aug 12 to decide

I’m in NS so not too worried. I just don’t see how things are going to work in fall/winter when every single kid in daycare has to stay home with a runny nose.

Hopefully it's warm in September, and they can do a lot of outdoor learning.

I would have supported a modified school year, with school starting in July and mostly outdoors. But maybe it's more complicated than that.

[Raps in 4]

Good thread on herd immunity.

Read on Twitter

So what he's saying is that Florida, Texas, and Arizona's approaches are the new golden standard in pandemic response?

[Vaclac]

So... who is sending theirs to school in September?

We have until Aug 12 to decide

I’m in NS so not too worried. I just don’t see how things are going to work in fall/winter when every single kid in daycare has to stay home with a runny nose.

Yeah that's gonna be a challenge. Hopefully employers will be understanding that parents will need to take more time off to stay with kids who have to stay home from school more. But I realize some employers won't or can't be so accommodating, if the nature of the job is just not very flexible. Aside from that I think people will have to call in family for help if they have them nearby, but that's not ideal either if it's really just grandparents who are the ones who actually have the available time to be flex child care providers.

[Johnny Bball]

I'm not sure people know how the data is impacted but here's some fact for you....the cases in the US stopped increasing daily and leveled somewhat at 60k/day right when testing could no longer be performed in under 14 days in badly hit states, there were shortages of chemicals required to complete testing, when wait times for testing completely out of control, (all those factors mean large numbers of people don't even get tested), after some states/counties went back to closing various venues, and most importantly it stopped increasing daily almost exactly when the data stopped being managed by the CDC and was shifted to direct control of the whitehouse?

[Kevin Willis]

So... who is sending theirs to school in September?

We have until Aug 12 to decide

It would be hard not to. Kids at this age need to interact with other kids not adults. Plus I've seen first hand that kids slack online, teachers too.

I saw that slacking so I pushed them to learn more and they complained they were doing more than at school but that takes up my time. As long as they social distance and wear mask, this alternating day thing doesn't seem so bad. The quadsemester though is stupid.

Edit: Wait were you trying to switch the subject?? You didn't find the discussion on herd immunity fascinating?

[Ackshun]

So... who is sending theirs to school in September?

We have until Aug 12 to decide

It would be hard not to. Kids at this age need to interact with other kids not adults. Plus I've seen first hand that kids slack online, teachers too.

I saw that slacking so I pushed them to learn more and they complained they were doing more than at school but that takes up my time. As long as they social distance and wear mask, this alternating day thing doesn't seem so bad. The quadsemester though is stupid.

Edit: Wait were you trying to switch the subject?? You didn't find the discussion on herd immunity fascinating?

LOL. Yeah basically, was not getting involved with herd immunity. Actually reading "Spillover" right now which is about all the zoonotic disease education I need at the moment.

My eldest is five years old, so SK. They are not decreasing class sizes or going every other day. Luckily, the kid is smart. Yesterday, she gave me a list of things she won't touch at school to the point I was pretty amazed.

She really wants to go, so I'm inclined to do it if Durham continues to stay low until then.

[refshateRaps]

So... who is sending theirs to school in September?

We have until Aug 12 to decide

100% for our family.

The vast majority of parents in our kids social circle are looking forward to see their kids back in school full time. Outside of one family caring for a very elderly parents, and another who has a child with serve asthma, which makes sense to be extra cautious. Otherwise only a couple of teacher friends with no kids or serious family medical concerns seem opposed

[Kevin Willis]

So... who is sending theirs to school in September?

We have until Aug 12 to decide

It would be hard not to. Kids at this age need to interact with other kids not adults. Plus I've seen first hand that kids slack online, teachers too.

I saw that slacking so I pushed them to learn more and they complained they were doing more than at school but that takes up my time. As long as they social distance and wear mask, this alternating day thing doesn't seem so bad. The quadsemester though is stupid.

Edit: Wait were you trying to switch the subject?? You didn't find the discussion on herd immunity fascinating?

LOL. Yeah basically, was not getting involved with herd immunity. Actually reading "Spillover" right now which is about all the zoonotic disease education I need at the moment.

My eldest is five years old, so SK. They are not decreasing class sizes or going every other day. Luckily, the kid is smart. Yesterday, she gave me a list of things she won't touch at school to the point I was pretty amazed.

She really wants to go, so I'm inclined to do it if Durham continues to stay low until then.

Books sounds interesting - I'll check it out. Thanks.

I have been reading a book about Emotional Intelligence and it says it's a bigger indication to doing well in life than SATs are. You can't build emotional intelligence in isolation. It's tough to teach empathy and handling hardships at home, so I changed my stance a little bit and believe it's important for kids to go back to school safely. If anyone, or family, is immunocomprimised they shouldn't but others could. Electronic devices can't replace human interaction - they have to get off of the computers/TV/devices/social media.

[Hero]

So... who is sending theirs to school in September?

We have until Aug 12 to decide

100% for our family.

The vast majority of parents in our kids social circle are looking forward to see their kids back in school full time. Outside of one family caring for a very elderly parents, and another who has a child with serve asthma, which makes sense to be extra cautious. Otherwise only a couple of teacher friends with no kids or serious family medical concerns seem opposed

I mean how low are you going to wait on rates before sending your kids to school. It's really low right now.

Read on Twitter

Ontario has a population of around 15 million. Many kids have already been negatively impacted by this. It's not like they can't pause the school year if there actually is a second wave. However, with current trends..

[Raps in 4]

So... who is sending theirs to school in September?

We have until Aug 12 to decide

100% for our family.

The vast majority of parents in our kids social circle are looking forward to see their kids back in school full time. Outside of one family caring for a very elderly parents, and another who has a child with serve asthma, which makes sense to be extra cautious. Otherwise only a couple of teacher friends with no kids or serious family medical concerns seem opposed

I mean how low are you going to wait on rates before sending your kids to school. It's really low right now.

Read on Twitter

Ontario has a population of around 15 million. Many kids have already been negatively impacted by this. It's not like they can't pause the school year if there actually is a second wave. However, with current trends..

With the situation not getting any better globally, a second wave is almost guaranteed. Canada's borders aren't closed.

[ATLTimekeeper]

I mean how low are you going to wait on rates before sending your kids to school. It's really low right now.

Read on Twitter

Ontario has a population of around 15 million. Many kids have already been negatively impacted by this. It's not like they can't pause the school year if there actually is a second wave. However, with current trends..

I think for a lot of people it's not about the current numbers but how poorly funded their back-to-school plan is. They don't want to budge on class size, despite Sick Kids calling them out on it.

The only reason we're saying yes now is to make sure the schools are properly staffed, and we think we'll be able to see the second wave coming before it hits here.

[refshateRaps]

I mean how low are you going to wait on rates before sending your kids to school. It's really low right now.

Read on Twitter

Ontario has a population of around 15 million. Many kids have already been negatively impacted by this. It's not like they can't pause the school year if there actually is a second wave. However, with current trends..

I think for a lot of people it's not about the current numbers but how poorly funded their back-to-school plan is. They don't want to budge on class size, despite Sick Kids calling them out on it.

The only reason we're saying yes now is to make sure the schools are properly staffed, and we think we'll be able to see the second wave coming before it hits here.

The only people i know not gong have either someone in their family with a health condition to be conscious of or dont want their kids wearing masks all day

Both reasonable