Herd immunity. Where is the evidence it is not an option?

Annasopra

How do you know we will?

JimmyVik

Mike3287 wrote: »

Contadicting yourself there Jimmy

We will never be able to come out of lockdown if virus is present

You do know they have magic numbers that will trigger actions in future.

If the reproductive rate goes above a certain amount. Lockdown.
If the ICU numbers go above a certain amount. Lockdown.


What im saying is that people not heeding the advice will have us all back in lockdown.

LeYouth

There's hardly immunity for flus like this one.

yosemitesam1

Deaths, Sweden etc aside. Is there actually any evidence to bring into question that herd immunity is a viable option for covid?
"There is no evidence to say it can work" gets thrown about a lot. But where is the evidence to say it won't/can't be an option?
Immunity is more complicated than whether antibodies are present or not in the blood.
Also diseases such as covid don't move through a population in a homogeneous way. They move through veins of the population. A smaller proportion of the population thus needs immunity to stop exponential growth than 1-(1/r0) predicts

political analyst

According to an article written by Sarah Knapton and published in the print edition of the Indo (9 October), a study in the British Medical Journal casts doubt on the effectiveness of social distancing and closing schools versus building up herd immunity against Covid.

The study claims the school closures may have had the effect of actually killing more people.

For this study, Edinburgh university researchers re-analysed Imperial College London's modelling, which led to the British lockdown. They predicted that, over the pandemic's entire course, keeping children out of classrooms would increase the death toll by 80,000 to 95,000 and that social distancing by everyone, rather than just over-70s, could cause 149,000 to 178,000 deaths.

Professor Graeme Ackland of Edinburgh university said that the death-toll reduction achieved by lockdown is short-term gain but that it leads to long-term pain:

If you had done nothing, it would all be over by now. It woudl have been absolutely horrendous but it would be over. It wouldn't even have been completely lunatic to do nothing.

Ackland said that the original Imperial paper had figures showing the dangers of school closures and blanket social distancing but that many experts didn't notice them.

I think that the Edinburgh study vindicates the scientists who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for the end of lockdowns for young and healthy people.

Hoboo

political analyst wrote: »

According to an article written by Sarah Knapton and published in the print edition of the Indo (9 October), a study in the British Medical Journal casts doubt on the effectiveness of social distancing and closing schools versus building up herd immunity against Covid.

The study claims the school closures may have had the effect of actually killing more people.

For this study, Edinburgh university researchers re-analysed Imperial College London's modelling, which led to the British lockdown. They predicted that, over the pandemic's entire course, keeping children out of classrooms would increase the death toll by 80,000 to 95,000 and that social distancing by everyone, rather than just over-70s, could cause 149,000 to 178,000 deaths.

Professor Graeme Ackland of Edinburgh university said that the death-toll reduction achieved by lockdown is short-term gain but that it leads to long-term pain:



Ackland said that the original Imperial paper had figures showing the dangers of school closures and blanket social distancing but that many experts didn't notice them.

I think that the Edinburgh study vindicates the scientists who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for the end of lockdowns for young and healthy people.

No it doesn't. One study. Using models. The words may and possibly in every paragraph. Nothing more than a theory.

Real Donald Trump

The uk were originally going to go down the herd immunity route at the start but did a u-turn on the advice of the expert Neil Ferguson. The same guy who said in the past that up to 150 million people could die from bird flu. The guy is fraud with a very bad record when it comes to predictions.

agoodpunt

we do need to try some different where we are now is like when it all kicked off there be as many fatalities this time around and treatments should be more targeted quicker recoveries
herd immunity among schools should work through the young shounld be allow build up immunity
we are all fed up with the distancing thing especially those who live alone

Irishphotodesk

Study shows that people will take money and produce a report.

Nothing new or outrageous there, haven't read the report but have read the OP and it's clear that the OP says they used data and made projections based on assumptions, so in my opinion credibility as scientists is immediately lost.

Beasty

Threads merged

Graces7

JJJJNR wrote: »

Totally confused about how to keep my immunity topped up for when things do return I think wearing ppe now might be the wrong message to be sending out.. I think people are suffering ptsd under the circumstances.

Our bodies are constantly battling things that don't effect us because we are exposed to them on a daily basis, various strains of the cold and flu. I've a feeling the more we are in lock down the more dangerous these normal bugs will be and the longer we put off a return to normality the worse its going to get. What if the people who are asymptomatic to covid19 become symptomatic to another strain because of social distancing.

I'm really confused about it..

People need to adjust. Start a new way of life. Stop with the " what ifs"!

If you are in lockdown then you cannot catch any bugs.

Are you in total lockdown ? Never being near another person? Or just limited re gatherings?

Graces7

pgj2015 wrote: »

How many posts have you dedicated to complaining about why the old are causing all your problem? doesnt sound like you are getting on with it.

I am a young person myself and it has never crossed my mind to blame the older generation for house prices, cost of living etc

You know we had a boom the last few years? there was a lot of money to be made. I was unemployed first half of 2016, I set up a business in July 2016. Now I am looking to buy a house without a mortgage, if I can do it anyone can.

your posts sound like you are trolling but if not you seriously need to stop wasting your time going around moaning about the old population.

Worry not. Old age is coming to everyone..... If they are lucky.

Graces7

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Tax evasion was sport back then. Not even something to be ashamed of. Now they whinge about lack of state funding for services they need. Hard to make it up.

Apparently not from your inventive and woefully inaccurate posts. ...

Hoboo

Graces7 wrote: »

Apparently not from your inventive and woefully inaccurate posts. ...

Drops mic....

Ouchy

dubrov

Graces7 wrote: »

Worry not. Old age is coming to everyone..... If they are lucky.

I thought with the lockdown, everyone lives forever

saabsaab

Of course it could work maybe even probably work but at what cost in lives sickness breakdown of health services etc.


We are probably 4-5 months away from at least one vaccine or several. Which should do the job if that doesn't work then it will be herd immunity.

jill_valentine

saabsaab wrote: »

Of course it could work maybe even probably work but at what cost in lives sickness breakdown of health services etc.

It's not clear that herd immunity is possible at all. They expected to detect antibodies in 30%+ of the Swedish population by now, instead they found them in something like 6%. Infection does not seem to embed a long term immunity.

In the meantime Sweden lost more of its population to Covid than it has to any other single factor since a famine 150 years ago.

saabsaab

jill_valentine wrote: »

It's not clear that herd immunity is possible at all. They expected to detect antibodies in 30%+ of the Swedish population by now, instead they found them in something like 6%. Infection does not seem to embed a long term immunity.

In the meantime Sweden lost more of its population to Covid than it has to any other single factor since a famine 150 years ago.

I see what you are saying but I'd say it just means that herd immunity would take longer and may be more painful than otherwise might be the case.

Zebra3

jill_valentine wrote: »

It's not clear that herd immunity is possible at all. They expected to detect antibodies in 30%+ of the Swedish population by now, instead they found them in something like 6%. Infection does not seem to embed a long term immunity.

In the meantime Sweden lost more of its population to Covid than it has to any other single factor since a famine 150 years ago.

37,573 deaths bare minimum during the 1918-1920 pandemic.

I had no idea that Sweden had lost a higher figure than that through covid.

Tragic news. I'll have to reappraise my opinions on how Sweden is doing things.