It might have been a cruel-but-rational strategy if you were prepared to accept the increased mortality among vulnerable demographics. (I wouldn't be.) (But I'm in a vulnerable demographic…)
But anyhow in recent days I've started seeing reports of permanent effects among "recovered" victims: cognitive impairment, permanent lung damage, etc. Which makes the herd-immunity approach even less attractive. On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 7:42 AM Srijith Nair <[email protected]> wrote: > Got to say I am trying to understand the herd immunity concept as well and > falling short with COVID-19. > > With a basic reproductive rate of around 3, it has been calculated that > about 70% of population need to be infected. With a fatality rate of > 0.5-1%, about 0.35-0.7 percent of a country's population will die! That > seems a bit...hmm..bad! > > The biggest assumption we seem to make with the herd immunity approach is > that surviving infection once creates immunity in the host. With COVID-19 > that seems to be still a rather big unknown and seems to completely > undermine the approach towards herd immunity. > > The way I see it, herd immunity would work well only when we have a > vaccine (and second best when we have clear proof of immunity after > infection, but at the cost of rather high number of fatality) and not as a > preventive measure. > > Talking of the Dutch approach, I find it rather astounding that the PM > says two things in the same breath - we don't seem to know what kind of > contribution children have made to spread of the virus, the study results > will come out in June but hey, let us start the primary school (which is > the least affected by a month or two of missed or virtual schooling) in > May, because.... (I live in Amsterdam, have primary school going kids so I > find this whole approach very weird, especially given that before the > school closed there were 3 confirmed cases of kids/parents who kept coming > to school with early symptoms!) > > Regards, > Srijith > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020, at 2:42 PM, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote: > > On 22/04/2020 12:11, Amit Varma wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:28 PM Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> I assume you mean that it is not a good thing to actively work > towards. > > >> This also presumes that teh authorities can affect this outcome one > way or > > >> another. > > >> > > > > > > Well, the idea is to delay and mitigate till a vaccine is ready, while > > > treatment protocols that will lower mortality also evolve at the same > time. > > > > Also, controlling the spread means that the number of people seriously > > ill at any one time isn't greater than the local health service capacity > > to give them quality care. > > > > One big unknown that's making it hard to say what's right to do - and > > therefore giving licence to various nutjobs to claim that any given > > strategy is wrong with great certainty - is that we don't really know > > how many people are infected. > > > > *MAYBE* COVID is highly contagious but not very serious, with only a > > fraction of people showing anything more than a mild cough, and a tiny > > fraction getting seriously ill. It's already been spreading for months, > > and we only noticed it when enough people had it to make a notable > > number of people properly sick. We've all mainly had it already and > > we're nearly at herd immunity and all this lockdown stuff is barely > > necessary as we're unlikely to overrun health services unless we let it > > get REALLY out of hand; the worldwide confirmed-infected and > > confirmed-dead-of-covid rate is mainly just rising as more testing rolls > > out and we've already plateaued, with the lockdowns just flattening out > > the tail end of the rise to the plateau a bit. > > > > *MAYBE* it's actually pretty rare, and the published infection figures > > from various nations are nearly all the people who have it, because > > almost all people who have it show enough symptoms to get noticed and > > tested, and quite a high fraction of them get seriously ill. In which > > case, we're sitting on a ticking time bomb of it getting out of hand in > > the population. > > > > There's some evidence for the former due to a few random population > > sampling exercises, but the only way to really know either way is to > > test as many people as possible. And to avoid bias in the testing, test > > the population at random, rather than just people who start coughing, as > > otherwise we won't know how many people are asymptomatic carriers. Test > > people who died of lung failure, so we know whether to count them or not. > > > > > Also, it is impossible in India, except for privileged elites like us, > to > > > separate the vulnerable from the non-vulnerable. So many poor in > congested > > > cities, more co-morbidities than other nations, and a horrendous > healthcare > > > system -- there would have been carnage. (There still might be carnage > down > > > the road.) > > > > :-( > > > > > > -- > > Alaric Snell-Pym (M7KIT) > > http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ > > > > > > Attachments: > > * signature.asc > >
