Science! (Herd Immunity)

While discussing these topics, it’s important to keep in mind updated information on the lifecycle of the coronavirus itself. New facts just published, and that should permanently affect our public lives:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/coronavirus-can-live-on-surfaces-for-month-australia-csiro-study/12752108 

I think I’m going back to wearing disposable gloves.  angry


here's some real science!


drummerboy said:

here's some real science!

 720 sexes?  what kind of liberal identity politics kind of science is that?  


ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

here's some real science!

 720 sexes?  what kind of liberal identity politics kind of science is that?  

 please, don't get me started with the acronyms...


this nutcase plan continues to gain traction in the WH



drummerboy said:

 So, consistent will virtually all libertarian thought.


I guess we can conclude that there really wasn't that much science in the "Science!"


on the plus side, the title of this thread reminded me of this.


Thanks to whomever added the parenthetical to the thread title.  I think this column in today's paper should put this to rest.

What Fans of ‘Herd Immunity’ Don’t Tell You

Excerpt -

So the idea of returning to something akin to normal — releasing everyone from a kind of jail — is attractive, even seductive. It becomes less seductive when one examines three enormously important omissions in the [Great Barrington]declaration.

First, it makes no mention of harm to infected people in low-risk groups, yet many people recover very slowly. More serious, a significant number, including those with no symptoms, suffer damage to their heart and lungs. One recent study of 100 recovered adults found that 78 of them showed signs of heart damage. We have no idea whether this damage will cut years from their lives or affect their quality of life.

Second, it says little about how to protect the vulnerable. One can keep a child from visiting a grandparent in another city easily enough, but what happens when the child and grandparent live in the same household? And how do you protect a 25-year-old diabetic, or cancer survivor, or obese person, or anyone else with a comorbidity who needs to go to work every day? Upon closer examination, the “focused protection” that the declaration urges devolves into a kind of three-card monte; one can’t pin it down.

Third, the declaration omits mention of how many people the policy would kill. It’s a lot.

(Emphases added)


max_weisenfeld said:

We don't have herd immunity to polio, we have a vaccine.

We don't have herd immunity to smallpox, we have a vaccine.

 Not exactly true. MPH person here. We in fact do have herd immunity to smallpox.  That was the goal. The last routine smallpox vaccine in the US was given in 1971.  The last known case of smallpox in the world was in 1977. WHO declared it eradicated worldwide in 1980. The reason we don't have smallpox circulating in the wild is because of herd immunity.

Of course we have herd immunity to polio.  We still have a vaccination program because polio is not eradicated worldwide yet. But we have herd immunity through widespread vaccination.  We came excruciatingly close to eradicating polio worldwide, and thus being able to stop the vaccination program, but there's been slippage.  The goal is eradication via herd immunity.

Indeed, the goal of influenza vaccination every year is herd immunity. Not 100% herd immunity, but the greater the number of people who get vaccinated, the less influenza circulates in the community. Vaccines interrupt the chain of transmission, and that's how herd immunity happens.

Herd immunity is the goal of vaccination. It is not and never has been a goal of widespread community infection. That's just not a thing. 


drummerboy said:

max_weisenfeld said:

We don't have herd immunity to polio, we have a vaccine.

We don't have herd immunity to smallpox, we have a vaccine.


Isn't herd immunity defined as having a certain percentage of the population immune to a disease - regardless of how it was achieved?

i.e. the goal of vaccinations is to achieve herd immunity, isn't it?

(these are rhetorical questions. the answer to both is yes.)

 Yes.


jimmurphy said:

jamie said:

National mask mandate would be a start!  Can anyone point to a scientific study that says this wouldn't make a difference?

Completely agree, but, honest question, does the President have the authority to issue a national mask mandate? 

I am not sure if this falls under some reserved power to the states and governors.

Seems like the governors are particularly empowered in this regard, but not sure if that is only because a Trump has abdicated responsibility.


 Yes. 

Emergency powers can be invoked:

“"If the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] determines, after consultation with such public health officials as may be necessary, that –

(1) A disease or disorder presents a public health emergency; or

(2) A public health emergency, including significant outbreaks of infectious diseases or bioterrorist attacks, otherwise exists”

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-emergency-powers-and-their-use

In fact, here's an article about how the president can use his powers legally for anti-democratic reasons.  He can certainly implement a mask mandate.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/


shoshannah said:

max_weisenfeld said:

We don't have herd immunity to polio, we have a vaccine.

We don't have herd immunity to smallpox, we have a vaccine.

 Not exactly true. MPH person here. We in fact do have herd immunity to smallpox.  That was the goal. The last routine smallpox vaccine in the US was given in 1971.  The last known case of smallpox in the world was in 1977. WHO declared it eradicated worldwide in 1980. The reason we don't have smallpox circulating in the wild is because of herd immunity.

<>

Herd immunity is the goal of vaccination. It is not and never has been a goal of widespread community infection. That's just not a thing. 

 We no longer have herd immunity to smallpox because we stopped vaccinating for it.  Should smallpox reappear, most people under 40 are not vaccinated


max_weisenfeld said:

shoshannah said:

max_weisenfeld said:

We don't have herd immunity to polio, we have a vaccine.

We don't have herd immunity to smallpox, we have a vaccine.

 Not exactly true. MPH person here. We in fact do have herd immunity to smallpox.  That was the goal. The last routine smallpox vaccine in the US was given in 1971.  The last known case of smallpox in the world was in 1977. WHO declared it eradicated worldwide in 1980. The reason we don't have smallpox circulating in the wild is because of herd immunity.

<>

Herd immunity is the goal of vaccination. It is not and never has been a goal of widespread community infection. That's just not a thing. 

 We no longer have herd immunity to smallpox because we stopped vaccinating for it.  Should smallpox reappear, most people under 40 are not vaccinated

 Max, you're missing the point.  We are not individually immune, but we are protected BECAUSE OF herd immunity that eradicated the virus worldwide. 


Same with any vaccine.   Most people lose their individual immunity (if they ever had it) to diseases against which they were vaccinated as children.  Vaccines wear off. But we are all protected via herd immunity. You are probably not individually immune to mumps.  But you are protected by the herd. Same with smallpox. We interrupted transmission 100% so that we all are protected by the herd.

It's a very misunderstood concept.  Even Rachel Maddow—who is one of the smartest people on earth—got it wrong the other night.  I wrote her a letter.


You got it wrong Shoshannah.  Anyone in the US under the age of about 50 has no immunity to smallpox since they were never vaccinated. (except for those vaccinated in foreign countries.)  Unlike many other viruses, there is no reservoir in nature for the human variety of smallpox.  This is why we were able to eliminate it as a disease.  But there is no herd immunity to smallpox.  It may also be possible that older persons vaccinated as children may no longer have immunity.  

The virus is held only in a very few highly secure laboratories in case we need to make an emergency vaccine.   You may recall that in the run-up to the Iraq war, health departments had to make plans to vaccinate the whole population since it was feared that Saddam may have had smallpox in a laboratory to attack us.  The Covid viruses have a large variety of viruses in wild animals in nature and these viruses sometimes mutate to become infectious and spread in people and some will be as deadly as Covid-19.  

I totally agree with the three points listed in Nohero's post.  Also, it appears that the vaccines will not be anywhere near 100% effective.  So, we will still need to wear masks for many months or perhaps longer.   Get used to it.  It helps save yours and others from illness and death.  It is not too big a sacrifice. And if the infection rates fall to very low, then businesses can fully reopen provided that precautions such as masks are used.   Governor Murphy and now former Governor Christie have it right, "Public health will bring economic health."  Public health and economic health are both intertwined. 

Finally, my favorite play is "Enemy of the People" by Ibsen.   We are seeing this play lived out in real-time. 


RobertRoe said:

You got it wrong Shoshannah.  Anyone in the US under the age of about 50 has no immunity to smallpox since they were never vaccinated. (except for those vaccinated in foreign countries.)  Unlike many other viruses, there is no reservoir in nature for the human variety of smallpox.  This is why we were able to eliminate it as a disease.  But there is no herd immunity to smallpox.  It may also be possible that older persons vaccinated as children may no longer have immunity.  

The virus is held only in a very few highly secure laboratories in case we need to make an emergency vaccine.   You may recall that in the run-up to the Iraq war, health departments had to make plans to vaccinate the whole population since it was feared that Saddam may have had smallpox in a laboratory to attack us.  The Covid viruses have a large variety of viruses in wild animals in nature and these viruses sometimes mutate to become infectious and spread in people and some will be as deadly as Covid-19.  

I know all about smallpox. As I said, nobody has INDIVIDUAL immunity. But we are all protected because herd immunity enabled us to eradicate smallpox. 


Saying we have herd immunity to smallpox is kind of like saying we have herd immunity to velociraptor attack. Both organisms are extinct in the wild and pose no threat. 

Introduce either into Penn Station at rush hour and see how immune the herd is. 

A massive immunization effort drove smallpox to extinction. But we gave up the herd immunity because we don't need it anymore. 


Shoshannah. I think in a way we are both right and are using "herd immunity" in a slightly different form of meaning. Herd immunity was needed to finally eliminate small pox and the vaccination population targets become more targeted as the smallpox virus was reduced to remote areas.  Thanks to all those who risked and some who lost their lives doing this vaccination work in remote lands to achieve the goal of eliminating smallpox.   But the current 2020 bottom line is that if somehow (god forbid) smallpox got reintroduced into our population, then we will have to vaccinate as fast as we can since we have no current herd immunity.  

But as regards Covid-19, I still agree with the three points above listed in Nohero's post.  The Great Barrington strategy or worst yet, no attempt to control Covid-19, is not a good policy. 

By the way; do you know the only vaccine that is 100% effective when used properly in a dog or cat or human without immune system problems?  ............Rabies vaccine... Thank you Louis Pasteur.     


RobertRoe said:

Shoshannah. I think in a way we are both right and are using "herd immunity" in a slightly different form of meaning. Herd immunity was needed to finally eliminate small pox and the vaccination population targets become more targeted as the smallpox virus was reduced to remote areas.  Thanks to all those who risked and some who lost their lives doing this vaccination work in remote lands to achieve the goal of eliminating smallpox.   But the current 2020 bottom line is that if somehow (god forbid) smallpox got reintroduced into our population, then we will have to vaccinate as fast as we can since we have no current herd immunity.  


This is correct. Another way to look at it is that routine smallpox vaccination stopped in the U.S. in 1972, so people born before then, more or less, were vaccinated and still carry the immunity. But the percentage of the population that is immune has been dropping since 1972 and, (I assume) no longer is high enough to achieve herd immunity any more.


I am going to check reliable internet info sources to see if the smallpox vaccination I had over 65 years ago may still give me some immunity.   I do know that I needed to get a Pertussis, DPT, vaccination when we had grandchildren to protect my infant grandchildren.   You do over time lose immunity to some bacterial or viral illnesses for which you were vaccinated.


good point. I don't know the length of smallpox immunity. I assumed it was lifelong.

a quick google says that there's probably not much immunity left in the population.


I hope to make one last point somewhat humorously:  I think that this pandemic has made us all more conversant in Epidemiology terms such as "immunity, specificity, sensitivity, viral load, exposed, not-exposed, period of communicability, incubation periods, contacts, mode of transmission, herd immunity, reservoir, mutation, rate of infection, community infection, " and lots of other very cool epi terms.  Epi and English are such a cool languages.   Good night for now.  "Sleep tight.  Don't let the bed bugs bite."  


mrincredible said:

Saying we have herd immunity to smallpox is kind of like saying we have herd immunity to velociraptor attack. Both organisms are extinct in the wild and pose no threat. 

Introduce either into Penn Station at rush hour and see how immune the herd is. 

A massive immunization effort drove smallpox to extinction. But we gave up the herd immunity because we don't need it anymore. 

 Well you know, velociraptor attacks are just something we have to learn to live with. What are you going to do, close down your theme park just because some people got disemboweled? The cure can't be worse than the disease.


In his column today, Paul Krugman asks a question that's relevant to the subject of this thread.

How Many Americans Will Ayn Rand Kill?

But why does this keep happening? Why does America keep making the same mistakes?

Donald Trump’s disastrous leadership is, of course, an important factor. But I also blame Ayn Rand — or, more generally, libertarianism gone bad, a misunderstanding of what freedom is all about.
...
But you also see a lot of libertarian rhetoric — a lot of talk about “freedom” and “personal responsibility.” Even politicians willing to say that people should cover their faces and avoid indoor gatherings refuse to use their power to impose rules to that effect, insisting that it should be a matter of individual choice.

Which is nonsense.

Many things should be matters of individual choice. The government has no business dictating your cultural tastes, your faith or what you decide to do with other consenting adults.

But refusing to wear a face covering during a pandemic, or insisting on mingling indoors with large groups, isn’t like following the church of your choice. It’s more like dumping raw sewage into a reservoir that supplies other people’s drinking water.

shoshannah said:

 Yes. 

Emergency powers can be invoked:

“"If the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] determines, after consultation with such public health officials as may be necessary, that –

(1) A disease or disorder presents a public health emergency; or

(2) A public health emergency, including significant outbreaks of infectious diseases or bioterrorist attacks, otherwise exists”

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-emergency-powers-and-their-use

In fact, here's an article about how the president can use his powers legally for anti-democratic reasons.  He can certainly implement a mask mandate.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

 Thanks for this response, Shoshannah.


There is a Libertarian think-tank article at: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/522293-voting-dont-bother titled: Voting? Don't bother.

Its opening premise:  

It’s important to begin with a simple (if infuriating) fact: your vote doesn’t matter. Even if you live in a swing state, optimistically, you “have a 1-in-10 million chance of deciding the presidential election,” a fact that, on its own, ought to suffice to make a reasonable person sit out the voting ritual.

It's a bizarre perspective. It only makes sense if the author's core assumption is that only a few people are "reasonable" and will follow this "don't bother voting" advice. For example, if instead, 99.99999% of people are "reasonable" and took the advice, then the presidential outcome will be determined by just the few "unreasonable" people voting. 

It's self-serving BS. But it gives an interesting perspective into how Libertarianism seems to conceptualize itself as the most "reasonable"... and reasonable people of course have approaches that are superior to how the rest of us "unreasonable" people approach our role in society. 

In summary: This article exposes how a lawyer from the small group of Libertarian "superior" people defends his Libertarian "superior" perspectives. But these "superior" Libertarian perspectives are not actually meant for the masses.... or the whole thing falls apart.


Adding: Like immunizations for herd immunity: If a few people decide not to get immunized, the disease is likely to go away anyway.

But if the anti-vaxxing approach starts to be promoted as the more "superior/reasonable" approach to the masses, and only a small percentage of people end up vaccinating (the "unreasonable" as indicated by this Libertarian article), then the probability of risk changes. 

Now those "superior" Libertarians who didn't get vaccinated end up as the "unreasonable" group who have put themselves in higher risk.


sprout said:

There is a Libertarian think-tank article at: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/522293-voting-dont-bother titled: Voting? Don't bother.

Its opening premise:  

It’s important to begin with a simple (if infuriating) fact: your vote doesn’t matter. Even if you live in a swing state, optimistically, you “have a 1-in-10 million chance of deciding the presidential election,” a fact that, on its own, ought to suffice to make a reasonable person sit out the voting ritual.

It's a bizarre perspective. It only makes sense if the author's core assumption is that only a few people are "reasonable" and will follow this "don't bother voting" advice. For example, if instead, 99.99999% of people are "reasonable" and took the advice, then the presidential outcome will be determined by just the few "unreasonable" people voting.

They don't want you to follow the logic.  It ruins the whole "con" if you do that. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.