Pin Ball

[Roger Feeley]

Here are some observations from reading various news and medical websites.

1. Herd immunity is calculated as (R0-1)/R0. So if R0 is 3 we need 2/3 of the population to be immune to achieve herd immunity.
2. R0 for Covid 19 is generally given as between 2 and 3. That would mean that we need something like 50-66%. Yikes, that's a lot of people!
3. If we get a vaccine, we win because the percentage of immune jumps by a lot. But a vaccine is, at best, a year away. We can't keep our economy in an induced coma for that long.
4. R0 for this disease is not a constant. It's some sort of hash of the transmissiblity of the disease and human behavior. If our form of greeting is to wave from far away, R0 goes down. If it's to pick each others noses, R0 goes up.

So...
4. The name of the game is to manage infections but not suppress them completely. We need as many people to become infected (and live) as possible without overwhelming the health care system. Somehow, we have to gradually release the screws and watch the infection rate. Further, we need to skew those infections to those people that are most likely to survive them. The goal is that magic herd immunity even if we go back to pre-pandemic behaviors.

If I'm right in the above points, we have a long way to go. The alternative would be to tamp this thing down and then be super vigilant so that any infection doesn't spread out of control. Then we would sort of live with the virus until there's a vaccine.

[Jim Becker]

Further, we need to skew those infections to those people that are most likely to survive them.

We now know that this is an impossible thing to ascertain and honestly, trying to direct infection rates to a certain demographic wouldn't be very moral. While it's clear that folks with certain medical compromises are more susceptible to lethal cases, there is now enough evidence that it's also clear that Covid-19 is dangerous to people of any age and any demographic. Continued care is required so we can get through "the cycle" with the least overwhelming of the health care system. That brings lots of short term pain, but also raises the changes of a better recovery in a few months time.

[Frederick Skelly]

This might be the most important article the New York Times has ever published:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/h...ctions-us.html

It's not behind a paywall (the Times is good about stuff like that.)

Interesting article. Thanks for posting.

[Mark Rainey]

“And those of us who are 70 plus, we’ll take care of ourselves. But don’t sacrifice the country.” - Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (quote from Dallas Morning News, 24 March 2020)

He doesn't say he'll sacrifice himself or anyone else, merely suggesting that he (we) will be responsible for himself (ourselves). Clearly an alien concept. Unfortunately.

The true measure of a society can be found in how we treat our most vulnerable

[Frederick Skelly]

The true measure of a society can be found in how we treat our most vulnerable

You're right of course. And let's not forget one corollary to that: "God helps those who help themselves." IMO, each of them is equally true, equally important and each should be applied when/where they are most appropriate. One size doesn't fit all. YMMV.

Fred

[Jacob Reverb]

I haven't read the thread, so I don't know whether this has been mentioned yet, but somewhere I was reading that the authorities may decide they want to "titrate" or "throttle" the spread of coronavirus, by "opening up" society again if it stops or "stalls" in its spread, then clamping down again if it starts to take off again...almost like throttling a wood stove or engine or forest fire. I guess what they're afraid of is that if the spread of the disease stalls or stops, it may delay the spread of CV throughout society until the winter, when people will be sick with other bugs, thus making CV more deadly at that time. They're also trying to avoid huge spikes, of course, and one way to do that is by building "backfires" where all the fuel is already burned up (population has already gotten it and is immune).

I believe they're hoping that by next winter, pretty much the entire population will have been exposed to CV and built up an immunity, and that what they're trying to avoid are cresting "crown fires" where the number of sick people goes through the roof. Unfortunately, one of the best ways to do that is to reduce the number of people who are susceptible to CV, by allowing them to become infected in a more "controlled" way. Ugly calculus...

[Jim Koepke]

somewhere I was reading that the authorities may decide they want to "titrate" or "throttle" the spread of coronavirus, by "opening up" society again if it stops or "stalls" in its spread, then clamping down again if it starts to take off again...almost like throttling a wood stove or engine or forest fire.

Jacob, There is a lot of errant information currently on the web. This doesn't sound like anything reported by any of the major/reliable news sources.

"Herd immunity" is a commonly mentioned idea. It can be accomplished via vaccine. Hopefully before next winter one will be available.

Sadly, there is too much disinformation coming from sources unreliable sources. Some can be verified through Snopes or other services.

jtk