Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/herd-immunity

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/17/herd-immunity-is-a-fatal-strategy-we-should-avoid-at-all-costs

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-herd-immunity-uk-boris-johnson/608065/

There's been lots on this since BoJo and chums first tried to float this idea and got pilloried for it, in this thread and all over the news. 'Herd immunity' without a vaccine is just 'let the vulnerable die' and the fact that we don't even know what percentage of the population have had it means you've no way of quantifying how far along that route we are.

Really CBA going over it again.

Ping them a message and let them know.

FT have made all their charts interactive, can switch between log\linear, cases\deaths and total\per capita, https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=bel&areas=gbr&cumulative=1&logScale=0&perMillion=1&values=deaths

You're really missing the point quite hard. I'm not saying that an approach of just letting the vulnerable die to achieve herd immunity is a good thing. I'm saying that a low death rate for those infected is a better indicator than cases per million. The best-case scenario is that everyone gets it and nobody dies, the worst case scenario is that everyone who gets it dies.

FT paywalls as usual

Oh I am accessing it for free?

Not sure how you're doing that. Every FT article I go to leads to a page with "Become an FT subscriber to read:...[whatever article]"

I thought all the corona content was free?

I may have missed something, so a couple of questions:

Has it been proven that if you get Covid-19 you are then immune from catching it again?
If so, how long does that immunity last?

Without answering both those questions, surely it's not possible to even think that herd immunity is a solution.

I'm saying that a low death rate for those infected is a better indicator than cases per million.

Both of which rely on reliable testing to be confident of and will depend on whether your government has bothered to try shielding the vulnerable, you know through things like quarantine, locking down, closing borders and PPE. Which was the point
of that chart.

Coincidentallyy USA/UK death rate is through the roof compared to other countries and our health services haven't even been overwhelmed, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Cue some smartarse remark...

Latest thinking seems to be based on studies coming out of South Korea https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-reinfections-were-false-positives.html

Coincidentallyy USA/UK death rate is through the roof compared to other countries

Is it actually 'through the roof' in the US? In NY sure, but overall the US is not actually doing that badly. Which surprises me, because they do have an extremely high case rate despite not even testing that much, but somehow the death rate seems to be pretty much under control with the exception of very specifically New York / New Jersey. I have no clue what's going on...

No.
But the logic runs:
-We've seen other coronaviruses.
-Immunity occurs post infection with these.
Therefore it is likely that immunity will be conferred by infection.

I guess if other states aren't testing or reporting it's going to be hard to know. Given how resistant some of the population are to restrictions on movement etc I can't see the country overall escaping New York levels of contagion but maybe their car-centric culture will save them...

Is it me or has the UK media stopped reporting the total deaths here? Looks like we're about to pass Italy for total deaths (according to woldometers, reliable?)

Lots of talk about easing lockdown since Italy and Spain are doing it. Jumping the gun somewhat, are infection and death rates falling?

This.

Yes they have. Im just not sure i would rather be in their possition.
But in terms of shutting down the spread they seem to have made it proper.

When talking about deaths tho will this also factor in those who will have died from lets say lack of aid beeing sent by western countries cause our ecconomies are shut? Or the lack of direct money from the west spending habits been shut down?

I think its quite clear that not many seem to think that economics does equal lives in this equation. Only those who die from getting the virus itself seem to be worth discussing. Maybe its because these are less abstract and much easier to pinpoint. Tho i think thats partly because we in the west wont die from lack of money but those who allrdy have very little will have dire consequences from even less means in other places.

Will Sweden uk us etc etc send the same amount of aid if we cant even afford to take care of our own even? Good luck to that government getting reelected. Maybe in sweden they could get away with that but likely not in a lot of other places.

I personally think that the view and how corona is discussed is often way to narrow and does not take in the bigger picture. We are not even sure that those who are now "saved" by lockdown will even be saved from getting the virus in the future. Its very hard to get a grip on whats a good solution but i think currently the view is to narrow in general.

I can't see the country overall escaping New York levels of contagion but maybe their car-centric culture will save them...

Yeah that was my view of it too, but currently I'm really struggling to make sense of the numbers... the low density of a lot of states is probably going to help them a lot, but then, low-density states are also not where a majority of people live.

'Herd immunity' without a vaccine is just 'let the vulnerable die' and the fact that we don't even know what percentage of the population have had it means you've no way of quantifying how far along that route we are.

The problem is that "lockdown until there's a vaccine or other solution" will end up killing way more than the scenario above.

.

Yep,
This FT page is free to view for me, at least,
and the UK figure has juped up to within a couple of hundred of the Italian figure.
As the Uk has never had a Lockdown as severe as Italy, Spain or France,
any lessening of restrictions seems to lead directly to a second peak.

As the Uk has never had a Lockdown as severe as Italy, Spain or France,
any lessening of restrictions seems to lead directly to a second peak.

I don't follow?

I would have thought the more severe the shutdown the bigger the risk of a 2nd peak. Not the otherway around at least.

I guess the idea here beeing is that the less ppl have had previously the bigger potential growth the virus will have once the lockdown is lifted since more ppl without "immunity" will now come in contact with the virus.

The new relaxed rules in Spain and Italy look a lot like our "full lockdown" rules.

If we relaxed our rules further than what they currently are there's a good chance the numbers would start going up instead of being steady / very slowly down.

But, will it necessarily or is that partly a political choice?

If I break it down: Some people will die because they cannot get healthcare in the lockdown, and that isn't really something you can completely avoid as you don't want to drag the virus in a healthcare setting.

Some of it will be partially avoidable with community efforts/investments, but not completely.

Then there are the political choices: As it turns out there IS money to bail actual people out. Now, I am not going to say there won't be any problems. If there are huge budget cuts/far less tax takings that also has knock-on effects, but dunno, maybe the banks can bail US out for a change? ;)

Now in developing economies it really is a problem as most don't have the resources to partially keep wages, it is much harder to bring aid etc.

I'd be interested to see some articles etc, no doubt you have those though.