Sabine on Herd Immunity

Sabine Hossenfelder is one of the smartest gals on the planet. This is her talking about Herd Immunity.

 

So.

We get kooks treated like scientists every day.

But post a real scientist and... nothing.

Why am I not surprised?

 

Great post!

I think people forget that besides the devestation of achieving a level that could qualify as herd immunity, the longevity of immunity defines how much devestation must continue to maintain that level.

That is, if immunity lasts 3 months (as may be the case with COVID) then one must have enough new infections to replace those who lose their immunity. And, that is a significant percent of the total who have had the disease.

It seems to me without doing the math that simply maintaining a herd immunity level would call for a devestatingly large number of new infections per year - which sounds slightly counter intuitive.

But, the idea that we can reach herd immunity level and then it's over is just plain nonsense, as that level is not a lasting accomplishment.

 

Btw, some of her videos on physics and cosmology are among the best. She's really something.

 

Amen - I need to remember to listen to her more.

 

Thanks, but she deserves the credit.

 

She’s good. Made several points I’ve been trying to get PF to accept for months. The concept of heterogeneity in relation to herd immunity is one. Progressives here at PF became very angry and accused me of peddling pseudoscience when I broached the subject. Same when I introduced possible T cell immunity to PF. So it goes.

I do think she needs to examine the fading antibody subject more comprehensively. She is apparently unaware of the research I posted the last few days on second wave antibodies and memory B cell development in many convalescents. If she’s into physics she probably can’t keep up with it all.

Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed the video.

 

Watch it again.

 

Yes. I'm aware she covered my point.

I called it out as I think that gets overlooked.

As for policy, which she pretty uch avoides ...

Imho, trying for the herd immunity direction would be an unnecessary slaughter of US citizens that wouldn't achieve goals such as increased economic function. Also, we don't have the hospital capacity to handle that.

The unnecessary part comes from the high likelihhod that we will have a vaccine before herd immunity could happen.

And, states with essentially zero restrictions on economic activity have experienced strong economic downturn due to COVID. So, the idea that removing restrictions will result in significant economic growth hits me as unlikely.

 

I am hoping for a vaccine that prevents infection in a majority if not nearly all recipients. But today we have no conclusive evidence this will be the case.

I think it’s a mistake to denigrate even the mere discussion of complete or partial natural herd immunity. Especially when it’s almost certain we will have to depend on some fraction of natural and may have to fall back on a majority natural immunity.

We are counting our chickens before they hatch. We should plan for the possibility we end up with less or even no chickens. Refusing to discuss natural herd immunity because it would result in death is absurd. If we end up falling back on it out of necessity it’s wise to hash it out now. Calling it stupid or mass murder doesn’t help.

She made that point when talking about science vs what’s right or best in certain situations.

All that said, I understand your concerns. Inability of both sides of the herd immunity debate to stick to facts concerns me as well.

 

1) No chickens? What does that even mean? Are you trying to say all the vaccines could fail?

2) I don't see a point to discussing it. It can't meet it's stated objective, to restore the economy. It's wishful thinking.

3) Which doesn't help you.

If Dems gets the Senate as well as the WH, we can work the problem.

 

I’m saying until we have solid evidence vaccines can induce immunity in at least 75% of recipients (actually since the public trust in the scientific/medical community has been destroyed and many won’t be vaccinated you probably need closer to 95% efficacy) we are going to have to rely to some extent on natural infection herd immunity. That’s just a fact. I know that isn’t what you are told, but it’s the truth.

Consider this. Let’s assume for a minute you are correct and immunity to SARS-CoV-2 only lasts 3 months after natural infection. What makes you think a vaccine that presents identical antigen as the virus itself will produce immunity that lasts longer than 3 months? When you assume there is little immunity from natural infection you have to assume it’s a very real possibility a vaccine will only last 3 months. Nobody wants to talk about the other side of the coin. Why do you think that is? Why do you think I’m the only one pointing this out? To be clear, it’s possible a vaccine may provide better immunity than natural infection. But it’s statistically unlikely.

It’s as silly to assume vaccines will make everything great again as it is to assume natural infections will.

The virus doesn’t care if anyone sees a point in discussing herd immunity. Nor does it care about the economy. Natural immunity may be all we have. It may have to pick up the slack for a less than perfect vaccine. It’s asinine to stick our heads in the sand to avoid discussing very real possibilities.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. I don’t need anyone’s help and didn’t ask for any. I just pointed out the good point made in your video.

Yes, I’m sure some believe that scenario would somehow make a vaccine with a 50% efficacy into one with a 99% efficacy. Or it might magically bring the herd immunity threshold down so that the 50% efficacious vaccine induces herd immunity even though only 50% of people submit to vaccination.

 

1) So there will be some Darwin awards, maybe it will improve the gene pool in flyover country...

2) That's a great point, if it comes to pass. Hoping it doesn't.

3) You're making a policy proposal. It should be behind glass with a sign saying 'If it all goes straight to hell, break glass'.

4) I was talking about the interim period there, before we get a vaccine. Countries like South Korea have been very good at dealing with it. Hopefully we are that much dumber than Koreans.

 

If you are ever bored, research the case fatality rates of rural counties vs. urban and metro. Don’t google it and read a journalist’s opinion. Actually look at data. Also, progressive counties have the highest rates of anti vaxxers and unvaccinated children. Boulder, Colorado is one. Spokane and King County Washington are national hotspots of antivax. In Texas, Austin is a hotspot of antivax. There’s so much you believe that isn’t true.

I really encourage everyone to think about not only what you are being told by government and media, but why they are selecting the information they allow you to have.

But if we do what you propose, there will be nothing behind that glass. Then what?

South Korean government solved their mask shortage instead of lying to their citizens. They assumed (correctly) asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread would be a factor based on our knowledge that it is in all other common viral respiratory diseases. Our “experts” missed that day of class or something and said we didn’t need masks because “we didn’t know about“ asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread. Honest question. Do you think Biden (or Hillary) would pick a better “expert” than Fauci?

 

You're claiming a weakness in her argument??? I don't accept that. She IS sticking to the facts. And, that she didn't make policy recommendations does not suggest that the "herd immunity" approach could possibly be considered acceptable.

I don't see any argument suggesting that reachig herd immunity can be a satisfactory course. Ever.

As per the video, it would require huge numbers of deanths. Plus, with immunity likely of relatively short duration, it would mean a continuing number of new infections that is well beyond what could be seen as tolerable.

Isolating those considered more vulnerable is a nonsense approach. We have a gigantic retirement population, all of whom are more vulnerable. Suggesting these people should stay indoors is not a solution - it's a sentence. And, that's before we even start to consider those who have medical deficits.

As she pointed out, herd immunity is not something that is achieved and then just stays. Remember that with measels we have to work hard to maintain herd immunity by very active vaccination programs and requirements. And, when those aren't followed, we see herd immunity fail. Until we find a vaccine, herd immunity only gets maintained by some significannt level of new infections.

We will be actively fighting this pandemic until solutions are found such as far better remedies and vaccines - which is how we artificially create herd immunity.

Let's remember that even states that have remained open have experienced serious economic downturns.

Beyond that, I'd point out that we still don't know what the long term damage of COVID is for those who become ill.

They may recover. But, we've already identified "foggy brain" and other forms of lasting deficits. Choosing to subject huge numbers of citizens to these deficits is another aspect that hits me as unconscionable.

 

Her argument is that we should be pragmatic and not assume things we don’t have good evidence for. How did you miss my original post praising her? Here it is again.

Yes, she needs to bone up on current evidence concerning longevity of antibodies etc. Her information is what we had months ago. Not today. I gave her a pass because I don’t think virology or the immune system are her specialty

She did great sticking to the facts. I never claimed otherwise. I praised her for presenting unpopular facts I’ve been trying to get science deniers here to accept for months. On one point her facts are outdated.

Did I say she suggested herd immunity? Quote me!

Satisfactory? Reality is often unsatisfactory. And of course your view of herd immunity is one sided. Emotional people on both sides of the debate are unable to rationally discuss it. The lady in the video doesn’t seem to be one of them. That impressed me.

Yes people would die. People are dying now. It’s the reality we are stuck with. Again, all this short duration immunity for everyone is based on months old data. We now know memory B cells are formed in many convalescent individuals. This news apparently is too good to report so most are unaware of it. I know of this only because I’ve been waiting for research to come out on B cells and keep searching for it. Existence of memory B cells is possibly the best indicator of long term immunity in the field of immunology today. There was no memory B cell formation in convalescent SARS patients. Finding them in convalescent C19 individuals is a big deal.

So if vaccines aren’t exceptionally efficacious or they only last 3 month (which is likely if it really is the case naturally derived immunity only lasts 3 months) what are you going to do? What if the vaccines are 75% efficacious but half the country refuses to be vaccinated? What’s your plan? Your feelings about herd immunity are irrelevant at that point because reality rules.

Of course. That’s just common sense.

Yep.

Yep. Never claimed otherwise.

I’d point out we don’t know the full impact of influenza after decades of study. People here blew a gasket when I pointed out more people die of influenza induced cardiovascular events each year than the CDC reports of total flu deaths annually. We sure as hades don’t know the full impact of C19.

Well, there has been a lot of garbage media spin on that subject as well. But it’s reality and whether you feel anything is unconscionable or not has no bearing on reality.

I am not, and have not advocated for pursuing natural herd immunity on PF. I’m a pragmatist who believes in examining all the evidence we have before taking positions on things like this. Too often I see both sides of this debate base their argument on incomplete or erroneous information. Sabine was a breath of fresh air. Factual, pragmatic, and willing to think deeply about two sides to a debate.

 

Yes people would die.

How very cavalier...

Jesus

 

Just remember I’m the guy who has posted numerous ways individuals can protect themselves from infection and numerous actions people can take to ensure they survive infection. You on the other hand advocate for drinking as a coping mechanism, staying fat, and maintaining a negative attitude. All of which lead to infection, death, and reduced immune response to vaccination.

Now, who is cavalier about death? Who actually cares enough to help people live?

 

Why make false statements about what I advocate?

Oh that's right. It's what you do

Who's trying to dissuade people from wearing masks?

Who's cavalier about death?

You

 

Sorry, no. I’ve never tried to dissuade anyone from wearing a mask. In fact I’m the guy who tries to get people like you to care as much about your family as you do strangers. I’m the guy who tries to get people to wear a mask where it would be six times as effective as wearing it only in public.

When I say this:

You say this:

Never mind the fact your wife will get it from you because you both refuse to protect her. Doctors and nurses are around infected people all the time and manage to not further spread the disease. Yet you refuse to do the same things at home to save your wife’s life. And I’m the cavalier one about death? When you won’t inconvenience yourself to save your own wife’s life?

And I have the evidence on my side. Here the science showing you are about six times more likely to become infected at home than in public. It also shows you are incorrect to say if you get it your wife will. No. It’s possible she will get it. Much more possible if you both don’t protect yourselves.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/06/18/world/coronavirus-spreads-at-home/

There’s also evidence wearing a mask at home protects those you love.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...e-could-curb-covid-19-transmission-by-79/amp/
But of course you are not a fan of scientific evidence. You run on emotion and misinformation. Even Dr. Birx got close to the truth a while back with this statement.

And age is a comorbidity in your circumstance, correct? The only thing missing is the multigenerational factor that’s irrelevant in your situation I believe and irrelevant to the fact you can protect your wife with a mask even if you don’t have munchkins or grand munchkins about.

Now, see, I’ve encouraged you to protect those you love. You will have a temper fit because you don’t want to be inconvenienced at home even though the science is clear you can protect your wife. You will continue to call me cavalier even though it appears I care more about your own wife’s safety than you do.

Oh, and just remember when I said “yes people would die” I was agreeing with another poster. It was not my pronouncement. Why be upset with me when I was essentially repeating another whom you have no problem with saying the same thing?

Now I’ve provided quotes of what you advocate. Denial of science and you dissuading from wearing masks. And you’ve not quoted me dissuading anyone wearing a mask. And you won’t because I never have.

 

OK...so we can expect to never hear you disparage the effectiveness of masks .

That's good. We'll see how that goes.

It would of course be good to see you shoot down the anti-maskers...but somehow I doubt that will happen

 

I can’t disparage masks again because I never have. I’ve also never disparaged the effectiveness of masks. I’ve simply pointed out facts and called for critical thought on the subject. But critical thought isn’t appealing to most.

I’m for the most part a liberal. If someone wants to believe something that’s their business. Because I’m a liberal I only start to care a great deal about what someone believes when they want to force their will on others. When people who believe things that are not correct attempt to impose their will on others I really start to take notice. When people who believe things that are not correct attempt to impose their will on others while simultaneously refusing to take responsibility for themselves I really take notice.

Being a logical person, it makes the most sense for me to try and educate the authoritarian first, or at least expose the fallacies their authoritarian actions are predicated on so their damage to society is minimized. If at some point authoritarianism is vanquished and I have time and energy left maybe I’ll address finer points of science to other non authoritarians.

But I’m also a pragmatist. So I know the day authoritarianism is vanquished will never come. So I doubt you will see me “shoot down anti-maskers” in our lifetime. The only way it may happen is if anti maskers start passing laws prohibiting masks in a city or county or country. Then, yep, I’ll be all over those authoritarians as well.

 

Amen 557!

I guess so many feel threatened by the notion of herd immunity is that the notion threatens the official narrative, and threatens the notion that people MUST be vaccinated, thereby threatening potential profits for Pharma.

 

The only "threatening" the notion of herd immunity is the numbers of deaths it is required to accomplish it with no vaccines.