Can't get away from herd immunity?

CiCi

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 3:22 pm

Quote:

That's not the part it contradicts. It contradicts the part where you say that the current spread of the virus somehow proves that restrictions have failed.

Please quote where I said the restrictions have failed. I never said that they failed to flatten the curve (although the NY lockdown flattening the curve is debatable) which was the point of the lockdowns.

Here's what I said "Lockdowns don't help in the long run. I believe that the virus needs to run its course because the only way it recedes is through herd immunity."

Yes, I strongly believe only way it recedes in the long-run is if enough people are exposed to the virus.

Quote:

Yes, if it turns out that there's no vaccine and no treatment, and that herd immunity can easily be achieved with minimum deaths, we sure will feel silly for living with all those restrictions unnecessarily. (Until we remember that our ICUs were full even with the restrictions and then we'll be like "oh right, that was why.")

But we would feel much, much worse if we let tens of thousands of people die, only to discover that, whoopsies, there's no immunity anyway! Or whoops, it turns out there's a treatment now that saves 50% of patients, huh, we could have saved 10,000 lives just by wearing masks and doing health checks for another five months.

It's a risk either way.

It feels like you're making this an argument over whether or not social distancing restrictions are The One True Policy, but that's not the argument here. We know that social distancing is a gamble. We just think it's the least-risky gamble available at the current time.

Again, I was not talking about short term aspects of lockdowns ( and SD). I was talking long term. Once the lockdown is over, if there was no spreading before or during the lockdown( in a more innafective lockdown like in NY) there will be spreading afterwards. About herd immunity I always said it was my belief, I never said it's a proven fact.

ora_43 wrote:

I'm not even going to get into the argument that hospitals starved people to death.

It's a big planet. Look at literally anywhere outside New York. The death rate? Still high. Even in countries with high-quality medical care.

I'm not going to talk about other countries, it could very well be they were not suffiently prepared. I don't know. I do know what went on in NY.

Also, the virus has a few mutations so in many countries it may have caused it to be worse. All I can say is what I've seen in NY regarding hospital deaths rates having the potential of being lower.

Last edited by CiCi on Tue, Jun 02 2020, 3:49 pm; edited 2 times in total

amother

Cyan

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 3:27 pm

[quote="CiCi"]

Quote:

Please quote where I said the restrictions have failed. I said very clearly that lockdowns cannot prevent the spread of the virus long-term.

It may not prevent the spread long-term though it will cerainly prevent many excess deaths along the way.

Do you realize that if NY would have institued a lockdown just several days earlier then many deaths would have been averted? Apart from Israel, look at the statistics in Taiwan, South Korea etc where they did strict quarantine and contact tracing right from the start. And then look at NY and England who failed miserably (the latter which was planning for herd immunity until they realized, too late, that it won't work. So they ended deep in lockdown like the rest of the world with a terrible death count as well.)

CiCi

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 3:59 pm

amother [ Cyan ] wrote:

I don't understand why people think I critisized the idea of lockdowns in general. I only said that it doesn't help in the long-run, I didn't remark on any other aspect of it. I said I believe the virus must run it's course only then will it recede. Every time you open the lockdown you will have cases of the virus. It can be controlled opening of the lockdown, so the virus can spread slowly and in a manageable way, but the point is that I said the virus will recede when enough were exposed to it and it has run it's course. And I said as well, that I believe that we can get low-level herd immunity like we have with other viruses.

amother

Cyan

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 4:10 pm

CiCi wrote:

Do you or don't you agree that many more people would die in the long run without lockdowns?

From your OP, I would deduce that you don't agree with that statement.

CiCi

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 4:35 pm

amother [ Cyan ] wrote:

Do you or don't you agree that many more people would die in the long run without lockdowns?

From your OP, I would deduce that you don't agree with that statement.

I don't know why people came to that conclusion. I have spoken only about the long-term affects of a lockdown, not all aspects of it. I have supported the lockdowns when they were initially enforced, whether it was in Israel or the US. I don't support the continuous lockdowns that they have in NY now because it's not sustainable.

In a controlled lockdown, because of flattening the curve and consquestionally having less patients in hospitals, this would lead to better medical care for each pateint and therefore the fatality rate would be lower. I have argued in this thread that better patient cares leads to less deaths. Ironically it was opposed by those who argued with me.

Last edited by CiCi on Tue, Jun 02 2020, 10:46 pm; edited 2 times in total

ora_43

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 4:42 pm

CiCi wrote:

In a controlled lockdown, because of flattening the curve and consquestionally having less patients in hospitals, this would lead to better medical care for each pateint and therefore the fatality rate would be lower. I have argued in this thread that better patient cares leads to less deaths. Ironically it was opposed by those who argued with me.

Because that's not what you said. You said that hospitals in New York were unprepared, and neglected patients, and that that wouldn't happen in Israel.

If the problem in hospitals was that the curve wasn't flat, then that same exact thing would happen in Israel if we saw a massive, rapid spike in cases.

ora_43

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 4:51 pm

CiCi wrote:

I don't understand why people think I critisized the idea of lockdowns in general. I only said that it doesn't help in the long-run, I didn't remark on any other aspect of it.

Because everybody has known all along that lockdowns don't eliminate the virus forever, and nobody here is claiming otherwise. So when you keep saying 'lockdowns don't get rid of the virus', people just assume you must be saying something more than that.

If that's really and truly all you're saying, I don't understand why you're disagreeing with any of the people who've posted here.

CiCi

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 4:56 pm

ora_43 wrote:

I did say that better medical care leads to less deaths (and you did not agree with me on that.)

But you are right about the fact that if the curve wasn't flat Israel likely would've had a much higher fatality rate.

I also think in general Israelis value life more than average Americans so they level of medical care is better ( I'm not saying they are more medically advanced) therefore I still think the percentage of deaths of coronavirus pateints would be lower than in NY, but for sure if the curve wasn't flat the death rate would be much higher.

CiCi

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 5:22 pm

ora_43 wrote:

People do say all the time that lockdowns eliminate the virus. People contradict themselves else well.

It's quite astonishing that you are saying why I'm disagreeing with people, when you people started the arguing and bashing me! The question is about your behavior, and others like you, not mine!You people started the argument but you are blaming me for arguing with you? I am simply defending my position that I said in my opening post!

I said exactly what I meant. It's amazing that you defend yourself and others who made assumptions about what I meant when I meant nothing other than what I wrote. If I see in the course of an argument that I have hurt someone I say "sorry". If I see the other person is right, I say "you're right". But not only has this mentchlichkeit not happened on this thread, you are still blaming me for people's assumptions when I things VERY CLEARLY ?!

amother

Gray

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 5:30 pm

CiCi wrote:

People do say all the time that lockdowns eliminate the virus. People contradict themselves else well. The question is about your behavior, and others like you, not my behavior. I have clearly and continously said the same thing but you have argued with me!! You people started the argument but you are blaming me for arguing with you? I am simply defending my position that I said in my opening post!

I said exactly what I meant. It's amazing that you defend yourself and others who made assumptions about what I meant when I meant nothing other than what I wrote. If I see in the course of an argument that I have hurt someone I say "sorry". If I see the other person is right, I say "you're right". But not only has this mentchlichkeit not happened on this thread, you are still blaming me for people's assumptions when I things VERY CLEARLY ?!

I'm with Ora here. Your statements lent the impression that you are against the lockdown. And the force and adamancy of your posts made it sound like you have all the facts and anyone who disagrees with you is in the wrong. Additionally, you keep on stating assumptions and possibilities as facts.

Perhaps try to tone it down a bit. Your message then will come across more clearly, and you may just end up appreciating another person's viewpoint.

CiCi

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 5:57 pm

amother [ Gray ] wrote:

Excuse me. It is you who people who were being unecessarily forceful, starting not only arguments with me, but some of you literally attacked me. I did not start any argument, I defended my position. Maybe you people should've back off?

And it's the biggest untruth that you claim that I'm not flexible when a few posts back I told Ora that she is right, that flattening the curve saves lives.

But go on...You couldn't continue your arguments that lockdown prevents the spreading of the virus long-term or were contradicting yourself in your own posts so you're throwing the blame on me. Nice.

amother

Gray

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 6:17 pm

CiCi wrote:

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I didn't post anything about the lockdown at all. I only called you out for stating as a fact that the virus is here to stay forever.

But if you want me to list you the many ways the lockdown prevented a spread of the virus, err, prevented a slowdown in the spread of the virus, I can start spouting the details.

CiCi

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 6:38 pm

amother [ Gray ] wrote:

Indeed, I am confusing you with others who mentioned the lockdown.

I believe I responded to you saying that I'm correcting my remark that all scientists say that the virus is here to stay. I corrected that sentence writing that all scientists that I heard speak about the virus (continuity) said that it's here to stay.

I don't get the point why you want to list many ways the virus prevented a spread or slowdown. I never said the virus lockdown didn't prevent the spread of the virus on a short-term basis. I am repeating myself for the approximately the tenth time here that I only said that the lockdown does not present a long-term solution and that it will recede when it has run its course. I also said that I believe there will be some sort of long-term immunity.

nchr

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 7:35 pm

CiCi wrote:

The concept of a lockdown (not the joke of a lockdown in the US) has been discussed by virologists for years. That community understands that if something like avian flu mutated to be infectious in humans ch'v that life would be very different for a minimum of 6 months but likely for a few years. A "lockdown" is not supposed to eliminate a virus. Its purpose is solely to contain the spread in a manner in which becomes (1) manageable for the available infrastructure - this impacts all medical care, including care not related to the virus; (2) traceable - so you can isolate; (3) predictable and better understood; and (4) spread out over a long enough period of time so that you can develop appropriate vaccines or therapies.

Also, not to get nitpicky here, but a lockdown does prevent the spread of the virus, even long term (whatever that means) because it delays the spread by however much time and has the ability to do so for as long as necessary. You probably are trying to say that a lockdown will not eliminate the virus, which is true, but that may be where people are not understanding you.

amother

Tan

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 7:41 pm

amother [ Cyan ] wrote:

So you’re saying you know the solution to have prevented many deaths? You totally cut out Hashem from the picture. Don’t you think if He wanted them to be alive, they would be?

CiCi

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 8:55 pm

nchr wrote:

How does it prevent spreading long-term when as soon as Israel opened the lockdown the virus started spreading again because people were not exposed to it like in NY?

Do you mean that however long the lockdown takes that's how long it takes for the virus to keep on spreading? We know that already. I said as soon as you open the lockdown it starts spreading.

CiCi

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 10:54 pm

Quote:

I've looked over my posts and all I see was that I've been attacked for my opinions. of course I will react forcefully. I've been told that I want others to die, my opinions were made fun of..You too, could've said the same thing in a nice tone, the way you told me to do. I have no problem correcting my mistakes. I didn't change my opinion, but neither did you. So you shoud all your advice first before dispensing it to others.

Furthermore, after arguing against me, everyone had to admit that the lockdown does not prevent long-term spreading of the disease. So exactly what was the point of arguing with me and bashing me?

Last edited by CiCi on Tue, Jun 02 2020, 11:08 pm; edited 1 time in total

Miri1

Tue, Jun 02 2020, 11:07 pm

CiCi wrote:

Is "low-level herd immunity" an epidemiological goal?
Everything I've read points to high population percentages with regards to herd immunity.
I'm not familiar with low level herd immunity as a methodology.

But that aside...the controlled opening of the lockdown that you write about - well that is what is being done - we are slowly opening up, with the expectation that there will be more spread, but in a more manageable manner.
The question is what you view as the goal.
Did anyone think this thing could be eliminated at this point? I doubt it.
Perhaps Israel's initial goal was to eliminate, but they too adjusted that goal.
Right now it's about control, and in order to control community spread, we needed the lockdown.
It WILL have long term benefits because we will iyH gain a starting point in contact tracing etc.
And we've also hopefully gained some time to learn up this illness.

(edited for clarity)

CiCi

Wed, Jun 03 2020, 12:32 am

Miri1 wrote:

Is "low-level herd immunity" an epidemiological goal?
Everything I've read points to high population percentages with regards to herd immunity.
I'm not familiar with low level herd immunity as a methodology.

But that aside...the controlled opening of the lockdown that you write about - well that is what is being done - we are slowly opening up, with the expectation that there will be more spread, but in a more manageable manner.
The question is what you view as the goal.
Did anyone think this thing can be eliminated at this point? I doubt it.
Perhaps Israel's initial goal was to eliminate, but they too adjusted that goal.
Right now it's about control, and in order to control community spread, we needed the lockdown. It will have long term benefits because we will iyH gain a starting point in contact tracing etc.
And we've also hopefully gained some time to learn up this illness.

About low-level immunity I have said that that is my opinion, I am not an expert in immunology. That is simply my theory looking at how humans behave with other viruses. We have some immunity to other viruses from being exposed or having them at some point. In my opinion corona has also left some lasting immunity effects. I hope that is the case because many health experts, including Fauci, and many scientists claim that there will be another wave. Of course, only Hashem knows what will be, and there may be no second wave, but as far as staying around, viruses generally do not disappear. Full immunity would be the best, but I am doubtful that will be the case. But anything can happen! At this point it's all speculation, but I do think that eventually immunity will be similar to immunity to the flu.

Many people thought the virus could be eliminated, but I think people today are waking up to the idea that the virus is the new reality.

Of course, I agreed with the initial lockdown. I think almost everyone did. Now I feel that in NY and some other states though are opening up too slowly. While some people desperately need full reopening, it's the rioters who are granted exceptions to the rules, because at this time it's all about politics IMO.

I don't know if there can be a goal in USA, it's simply too complicated. I do wonder how Israel will react to the sporadic outbreaks. Now they are quarantining all who come in contact with those who were infected. I wonder if its possible to continue down this path until the majority of people were exposed to it.

ora_43

Wed, Jun 03 2020, 1:31 am

CiCi wrote:

We're not a hive mind. I'm stating my position, other people are stating their positions.

If you say "lockdown doesn't permanently end the spread of the virus," and then I say, "right, that was never the idea" - what is there to defend? According to what you're saying now, I was agreeing with you, no?

But I think the issue is that you're making a few assumptions that you're not even seeing as assumptions, just facts. Eg

- that New York has herd immunity now, and that (not the lockdown, the weather, or any other factor) is why the number of new cases there is dropping (although still much higher than the daily number of new cases in Israel, ftr)

- that the real NYC covid19 death rate is only 50% of the actual death rate; the rest was all hospital neglect

- that there's a huge group of people out there who thought we were going to eliminate the virus

- that posters here "had to admit" that lockdown doesn't prevent long-term spread in response to your argument (as opposed to never having believed that, even before this thread)

- that lockdown "didn't work" in Israel (it worked beautifully at doing what it was supposed to do)

I think that if you look at exactly what parts of your posts people are disagreeing with, you'll find that nobody has disagreed with the basic premise that the virus is here to stay. People are arguing against specific assumptions you and a couple other posters have made, not against the basic concept of how viruses work.