The herd immunity theory...

[Katy]

Now that the White House is apparently acknowledging their strategy is herd immunity, how long do you think it will take POTUS to get infected again?

I'm thinking he's probably safe through the election, given that immunity does seem to last  55-90ish days.  OTOH, more than one person has been released from the hospital and then readmitted directly into the ICU.

Please try to keep this academic in nature, rather than political.

[EmseB]

Hasn't the strategy always been herd immunity? As in, isn't that why they've been trying to get a vaccine so quickly? I honestly think containment/eradication was out of the question by January, so I'm not sure what other strategy any country is pursuing at this point, except NZ and a couple other small countries, but even they are eventually going to go to herd immunity when the vax comes out, afaik.

Edited October 15, 2020 by EmseB
Editing problems!!!

[EmseB]

Dp

Edited October 15, 2020 by EmseB

[BeachGal]

Derek Lowe just wrote about reinfection and immunity. The article is longer than what I posted but the following two paragraphs are a decent summary of what he has to say.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/10/14/immunity-and-re-infection

So the situation, for now, seems to be that yes, re-infection is possible. But it’s also quite rare. There are surely cases that we’ve missed, but it’s clearly not something that is happening much. We’re dealing with the fact that the human immune response is hugely variable from person to person – that’s one of its key features. Different people are going to raise different levels of different populations of different antibodies to a coronavirus infection, and that’s a big reason why the clinical course of disease is so variable. Even in these documented reinfection cases, we don’t know the details about what their first immune responses were like (there was no reason to profile these people in such detail the first time!) 

Moving beyond that, I would suspect that vaccination, which raises neutralizing antibodies to the Spike protein, will provide a population that is even less susceptible to re-infection than we have in the wild-type-recovered population now, given that three of the five cases we have details of did not have significant changes in the Spike region at all. Now, we don’t know how long vaccine protection will last, or how variable it will be in a broad population – we’re out there getting those data now – but from what we’re seeing, I think the prospects are good. No panic necessary for now.

[matrips]

22 minutes ago, Katy said:

Now that the White House is apparently acknowledging their strategy is herd immunity, how long do you think it will take POTUS to get infected again?

I'm thinking he's probably safe through the election, given that immunity does seem to last  55-90ish days.  OTOH, more than one person has been released from the hospital and then readmitted directly into the ICU.

Please try to keep this academic in nature, rather than political.

There seems to be two different types of antibodies that are created- one disappears and one stays.  But I’m not sure that science has figured out all the roles.

[Katy]

6 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Hasn't the strategy always been herd immunity? As in, isn't that why they've been trying to get a vaccine so quickly? I honestly think containment/eradication was out of the question by January, so I'm not sure what other strategy any country is pursuing at this point, except NZ and a couple other small countries, but even they are eventually going to go to herd immunity when the vax comes out, afaik.

 

Eventually that is what a vaccine will do.  But at this point the While House is acknowledging their plan is to let as many people as possible catch it ASAP and either die or get the economy back to normal.

[EmseB]

As far as reinfection, I don't really know except that I think I read most other coronaviruses have immunity lasting at least a year, maybe 3 or 4 and the reinfections we're seeing publicized now (2?) were in immune compromised people. Are you seeing more reports?

[EmseB]

2 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Eventually that is what a vaccine will do.  But at this point the While House is acknowledging their plan is to let as many people as possible catch it ASAP and either die or get the economy back to normal.

Link? Idk how this works, I guess, because the county I'm in, and the county I lived in previously in a different state both set their own test and trace policy, and the states decided opening levels for businesses, etc. It isn't a federal issue. 

[Katy]

Just now, EmseB said:

As far as reinfection, I don't really know except that I think I read most other coronaviruses have immunity lasting at least a year, maybe 3 or 4 and the reinfections we're seeing publicized now (2?) were in immune compromised people. Are you seeing more reports?

I've seen two CDC confirmed reinfection cases because the first person had been in a study and they could show the genetic strain was slightly different than the original infection, which means that anecdotal reports that many people have been reinfected are more likely to be true.  Those reports were previously dismissed as the prior infection re-emerging, which is why it was thought that the second occurrence was worse.

Everything I've read has said that immunity to other corona virusus generally don't last longer than 90 days, which was why Dr Fauci suspected that eventually Coronavirus will circulate yearly like the flu, rather than ever getting eradicated.

I've personally seen no indication that the person had an immune compromise.  Instead I've seen people who claim they are healthy and because they got over it the first time they would be fine the next time too.   But I don't follow the daily news and speculation like some people so I may be way off base.

[Katy]

 

2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Link? Idk how this works, I guess, because the county I'm in, and the county I lived in previously in a different state both set their own test and trace policy, and the states decided opening levels for businesses, etc. It isn't a federal issue. 

 

I first heard this yesterday, and there's been nonstop reporting about it since.  Here's a few links, but there are hundreds if you google 'white house herd immunity.'

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/13/world/coronavirus-covid

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/10/14/herd-immunity-scientists-say-trump-endorsed-covid-strategy-deadly/3655134001/

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-19-herd-immunity-backed-white-house-dangerous-fallacy-scientists-n1243415

[EmseB]

1 minute ago, Katy said:

I've seen two CDC confirmed reinfection cases because the first person had been in a study and they could show the genetic strain was slightly different than the original infection, which means that anecdotal reports that many people have been reinfected are more likely to be true.  Those reports were previously dismissed as the prior infection re-emerging, which is why it was thought that the second occurrence was worse.

Everything I've read has said that immunity to other corona virusus generally don't last longer than 90 days, which was why Dr Fauci suspected that eventually Coronavirus will circulate yearly like the flu, rather than ever getting eradicated.

I've personally seen no indication that the person had an immune compromise.  Instead I've seen people who claim they are healthy and because they got over it the first time they would be fine the next time too.   But I don't follow the daily news and speculation like some people so I may be way off base.

I have seen that antibodies wear off in about 3 months. I haven't seen anything about immunity wearing off that quickly at all. But it does wear off at some point, I think. But, afaik, our immune system retains some memory cells even after that point so that we are not totally naive to any given virus once we've had it, even if it mutates.

To the bolded, I'm not sure that I can draw that conclusion at all, but I would appreciate any reading you might have on that score.

I'm not an immunologist, obviously, just that I've not heard what you're saying here. I have heard specifically that one of the reinfections was in a person on heavy chemo so they had no b-cells  (or something of that nature).

[EmseB]

11 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

 

I first heard this yesterday, and there's been nonstop reporting about it since.  Here's a few links, but there are hundreds if you google 'white house herd immunity.'

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/13/world/coronavirus-covid

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/10/14/herd-immunity-scientists-say-trump-endorsed-covid-strategy-deadly/3655134001/

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-19-herd-immunity-backed-white-house-dangerous-fallacy-scientists-n1243415

Oh, the Great Barrington thing? I didn't hear anything from the admin directly about it, but I do confess to watching mostly confirmation hearing stuff these days so have been in a bit of a news bubble.

I do follow doctors on social media who have a mix of opinions on the GBD, so I have heard of that, just not the WH comments on it. Sorry for not understanding!

ETA: Also, like I said before, my state and county have set testing and tracing policy, as well as any lockdown policies, so I don't know how federal policy could possibly override that unless through the courts. The president can't open or close anything here or keep the states and counties from testing and tracing. But I understand now that wasn't your original question. I am trying to cook dinner and post at the same time!!

Edited October 15, 2020 by EmseB

[cintinative]

If we are talking about full on herd immunity with no restrictions anywhere, that scares me. The existing fatality rate times how many millions of people in the U.S.?  However, as EmseB said, states control their restrictions so that is not likely how it would play out. 

The last I heard at least of the two vaccine trials are on some kind of hold. Does anyone have an update on that? If the vaccine trials continue to have problems and development pushes way into 2021, I would be very concerned if the "national" message in the interim was "just get it and get it over with" which is how I tend to see the herd immunity push. Maybe that is too simplistic of a way to look at it?

[Spy Car]

The so-called herd immunity theory (via infections) would likely cost 2 million lives.

It is a policy of mass murder.

Bill

 

[Spy Car]

59 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Hasn't the strategy always been herd immunity? As in, isn't that why they've been trying to get a vaccine so quickly? I honestly think containment/eradication was out of the question by January, so I'm not sure what other strategy any country is pursuing at this point, except NZ and a couple other small countries, but even they are eventually going to go to herd immunity when the vax comes out, afaik.

 

Herd immunity through vaccination isn't the same as "herd immunity" through active infection. Right?

One would save a lot of lives, the other would kill millions of Americans.

Bill

[Not_a_Number]

I'd assume immunity lasts for a while, even though the antibodies wear off. I think there was an Ed Yong piece recently with the refrain that was something like "Well, the immune system is very complicated." But anyway, antibodies aren't the whole story. 

As for herd immunity via any means but vaccine, that's grotesque. That's an unimaginable amount of preventable suffering and death. (And I'd like to point out that death isn't the only bad outcome, or even the likely bad outcome.) 

[Not_a_Number]

Frankly, millions of deaths don't sound so unimaginable when we're a fifth of the way to a million, and that's before the second bad season starts. 

[mathnerd]

59 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Oh, the Great Barrington thing? I didn't hear anything from the admin directly about it, but I do confess to watching mostly confirmation hearing stuff these days so have been in a bit of a news bubble.

I do follow doctors on social media who have a mix of opinions on the GBD, so I have heard of that, just not the WH comments on it. Sorry for not understanding!

ETA: Also, like I said before, my state and county have set testing and tracing policy, as well as any lockdown policies, so I don't know how federal policy could possibly override that unless through the courts. The president can't open or close anything here or keep the states and counties from testing and tracing. But I understand now that wasn't your original question. I am trying to cook dinner and post at the same time!!

I read about the fake signatures on that Great Barrington thing and dismissed it all as another hoax. I just learned that it is real news ... So, off to read about it now ...

[BeachGal]

42 minutes ago, cintinative said:

If we are talking about full on herd immunity with no restrictions anywhere, that scares me. The existing fatality rate times how many millions of people in the U.S.?  However, as EmseB said, states control their restrictions so that is not likely how it would play out. 

The last I heard at least of the two vaccine trials are on some kind of hold. Does anyone have an update on that? If the vaccine trials continue to have problems and development pushes way into 2021, I would be very concerned if the "national" message in the interim was "just get it and get it over with" which is how I tend to see the herd immunity push. Maybe that is too simplistic of a way to look at it?

 

The AstraZeneca phase 3 trial is on hold in the US because they are supposedly investigating the recent case of transverse myelitis that occurred in England. All other AZ trials throughout the world are continuing. 

Johnson & Johnson has paused its phase 3 trials due to an illness in a participant in the UK. The outside examiners, the DSMB (data and safety monitoring board) convened on Monday to review the case. The DSMB is independent of the company. It’s not known if the individual is in the control group or the vaccinated group.

Pauses are a normal part of trials. They stop so the data can be examined. The DSMB is an interesting part of the process. They are secret and have no ties with the companies. Here’s an article about them:

https://khn.org/news/these-secret-safety-panels-will-pick-the-covid-vaccine-winners/

 

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, Katy said:

 

Eventually that is what a vaccine will do.  But at this point the While House is acknowledging their plan is to let as many people as possible catch it ASAP and either die or get the economy back to normal.

Where have you seen this?  I haven't seen anything about letting as many people as possible catch it ASAP.  

[rebcoola]

I think he is quite likely reinfected because he travels and who have people to travel around him so much.    Easy to see him being exposed to a different strain.   

I think calling reinfection rare/unlikely based on 7 months is weird.   I feel like getting anything twice in that time frame is weird.

 

[Corraleno]

26 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Where have you seen this?  I haven't seen anything about letting as many people as possible catch it ASAP.  

That is basically what the Great Barrington Declaration is advocating: protect the elderly and then open everything up and let everyone else get it. Multiple news sources are reporting that senior administration officials are pushing the GBD —  which is hardly surprising since the lead author of the GBD is a colleague of Scott Altas, who is now Trump's main medical advisor despite having no experience in immunology, virology, epidemiology, or public health. Altas is at the Hoover Insitute and his main claim to fame was being interviewed a lot on Fox News in defense of the idea of full reopening. Trump liked what he was saying on Fox and added him to the pandemic task force. Because apparently that's how we pick public health experts now. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Corraleno

[Not_a_Number]

12 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

The president doesn't get to say the country is going for herd immunity so let's let millions of people die. The rules are set by individual states, as we all know well. 

Oh, come on. What he says affects behavior and affects the policies in Republican states. Let's get real here. 

 

12 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

Also, I thought that antibodies are gone after three months but T-cells remember the virus and create the necessary response after that time frame. Has that changed?

That's correct, last I checked. 

[Corraleno]

Article in FInancial Times on Scott Altas pushing herd immunity: https://www.ft.com/content/9c95268e-5a65-48c4-bbaa-a4d88c4b5c03https://www.ft.com/content/9c95268e-5a65-48c4-bbaa-a4d88c4b5c03

[Not_a_Number]

10 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Article in FInancial Times on Scott Altas pushing herd immunity: https://www.ft.com/content/9c95268e-5a65-48c4-bbaa-a4d88c4b5c03https://www.ft.com/content/9c95268e-5a65-48c4-bbaa-a4d88c4b5c03

Paywalled for me. 

And things like this are why I'll be stuck at home for the next 6 months. I'd be angry if I had the energy, but I feel wiped today. 

[Katy]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Paywalled for me. 

And things like this are why I'll be stuck at home for the next 6 months. I'd be angry if I had the energy, but I feel wiped today. 

That's not the only article.  There are hundreds if you google.  Whoever is left at the White House has been confirming because everyone that would typically spin things to be less horrifyingly offensive are all out sick.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Katy said:

That's not the only article.  There are hundreds if you google.  Whoever is left at the White House has been confirming because everyone that would typically spin things to be less horrifyingly offensive are all out sick.

Oh, I don't need to find articles. They've wanted it the whole time. And I know about Atlas. 

[Corraleno]

While Donald Trump is on the campaign trail, his administration’s coronavirus policy is increasingly being shaped by Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist who has been championing a new version of the controversial “herd immunity” strategy. The US president appointed Dr Atlas to his coronavirus task force earlier this year, and his voice has become increasingly prominent in recent weeks as other members have been sidelined.

Scientists are concerned that Dr Atlas’s renewed backing of a herd immunity strategy that protects the most vulnerable while allowing the virus to run its course among the rest of the population could undermine efforts to control an incipient “winter wave”. “Mostly, he has tried to suppress or alter information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has contributed to the loss of public confidence in the medical community,” said Barry Bloom, professor of public health at Harvard.

The White House declined to comment, while Dr Atlas did not respond to a request to do so. Coronavirus cases have been rising across the US in recent weeks, topping 50,000 a day for several days in a row for the first time since August. Scientists warn this could be the start of a “winter wave”, which will need to be contained with aggressive measures to contain the rise to prevent an exponential increase in infections.

Despite this, the White House is urging states not to impose lockdowns again. A senior administration official said earlier this week: “Lockdowns do not eliminate the virus; lockdowns are extremely harmful; and the best policy to save lives is to aggressively protect the vulnerable and open schools and society.”

Officials say the most prominent voice in promoting this policy has been Dr Atlas. Unlike some others on the task force, Dr Atlas does not have a background in epidemiology, but he is known in rightwing policy circles as a former healthcare adviser to both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney during their failed presidential bids. Mr Trump appointed him to the task force after a string of appearances on Fox News during which he argued combatively against lockdowns. Even if Mr Trump loses next month’s election, he and his advisers will remain in charge of the country's coronavirus response until at least January, when the presidential inauguration will take place.

In recent weeks Dr Atlas has promoted a report known as the “Great Barrington Declaration”, which calls for a public strategy of “focused protection” of the vulnerable to build up herd immunity. The report’s findings have been undermined by studies showing that far fewer Americans have built up an immunity to Covid-19 than would be required to achieve herd immunity, and by some signs that people can be reinfected.

Martin Kulldorff, one of the report’s authors, told the Financial Times he had consulted Dr Atlas about the paper before its publication, and has since met both him and Alex Azar, the US health secretary, to talk about its conclusions. “Dr Atlas is a very important voice in terms of basic public health proposals and a strong thinker,” said Mr Kulldorff.

Dr Atlas’s intervention is the latest in a series of moves that have irritated other scientific advisers within the administration. He was one of the advisers who pushed for the CDC to change its guidance so that it no longer recommended people without symptoms be tested, even if they had been in contact with someone with the virus. Those guidelines were changed back soon afterwards following widespread criticism.

Last month, Dr Atlas publicly contradicted his fellow task force members Anthony Fauci and Robert Redfield, who had told Congress earlier in the day that 90 per cent of Americans still remained susceptible to the disease. That row erupted when Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was overheard on a flight saying: “Everything [Dr Atlas] says is false.” Those close to the task force say the normally soft-spoken Dr Redfield has on occasion become irate at Dr Atlas, clashing particularly over the CDC testing guidance. Meanwhile Dr Atlas’s colleagues at Stanford University have also voiced their alarm, with 78 of them signing an open letter saying: “Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities.”

As he has faced mounting criticism, Dr Atlas has pushed back aggressively. He has retweeted criticism of Dr Fauci, accused his critics of “instilling fear”, and his lawyer has threatened to sue the signatories of the Stanford letter. His allies say these political interventions belie a thoughtful scientist who is interested mainly in following evidence, even if others in his field disagree. “Scott Atlas does not argue, he simply presents the scientific evidence,” said Paul Peterson, who like Dr Atlas is a senior fellow at the rightwing think-tank Hoover Institution. Sally Pipes, the chief executive of the Pacific Research Institute, worked alongside Dr Atlas as adviser to Mr Giuliani in 2007. She said he was primarily motivated at that time by a libertarian dislike of Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms. “We were very concerned we might move to a single-payer system, and we wanted to stop the government running healthcare like it does in Canada,” she said.

Both Dr Atlas’s friends and critics say his libertarian views have guided his response to coronavirus. But his critics warn those views have overridden the scientific evidence. “He is a political operative with no scientific background to make recommendations that affect millions of lives,” said Mr Bloom. “It is like asking a microbiologist to read brain scans and determine who has cancer.”

[Corraleno]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Paywalled for me. 

And things like this are why I'll be stuck at home for the next 6 months. I'd be angry if I had the energy, but I feel wiped today. 

Quoting got messed up, but I posted the gist of the FT article above 

[Not_a_Number]

Focused protection for the vulnerable, my foot. There's no way to do that for more than a year. The elderly, the diabetic, the immunocompromised don't live in bubbles. Take a look at the harm there's been done in nursing homes already by not letting visitors in. And you HAVE to not let visitors if there's a raging epidemic. It's either death by coronavirus or death by neglect. 

They make me sick. If you're going to argue that the economy is worth more than certain people's lives, just come out and say it. I might disagree with you (I do disagree with you), but don't tell me you're going to protect the vulnerable. 

[Spryte]

We can do so much better than this.

[Spy Car]

 

5 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

https://gbdeclaration.org/

A link so that you can read the explanation of the scientists’ reasoning.

No where do they address that the number of people who would die under their mass infection protocols, which most responsible scientists put at about 2 million deaths in the USA alone.

They just sluff off that little factlet.

It is a prescription for mass death. 

Bill

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

Quote

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

Unfortunately, there seem to be risks other than death, and they are very strangely distributed in the population. I don't want to do this experiment on myself, thank you very much. 

 

Quote

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized.

Yeah? We're going to staff nursing homes with ONLY people with acquired immunity? And will PCR testing of visitors keep out the virus when TONS of testing didn't even manage to keep the virus out of White House? Remember all the asymptomatic spread and false negatives? 

 

Quote

Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home.

I got news for you: NYC already HAS grocery delivery, and I'm sure elderly people who could afford it used it in March and April. And people got sick anyway, because lots of people don't live alone. 

 

Quote

When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. 

Oh, a detailed list of measures? Tell me more. Because I'm not seeing a detailed list of measures here. Who's implementing these measures? Is someone going to pay for all the groceries delivered to the old people and the testing? Are we providing rooms and services to older folks living with family that has to work? What's your plan, exactly?? 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Spy Car]

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Focused protection for the vulnerable, my foot. There's no way to do that for more than a year. The elderly, the diabetic, the immunocompromised don't live in bubbles. Take a look at the harm there's been done in nursing homes already by not letting visitors in. And you HAVE to not let visitors if there's a raging epidemic. It's either death by coronavirus or death by neglect. 

They make me sick. If you're going to argue that the economy is worth more than certain people's lives, just come out and say it. I might disagree with you (I do disagree with you), but don't tell me you're going to protect the vulnerable. 

Thank you for telling it like it is. Using the term "focused protection" is positively Orwellian. 

The reality is this would be a "culling" of people who are seen by some as "weak." 

Truly sickening.

Bill

[Not_a_Number]

The economic and health impacts aren't at odds. They are correlated: 

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy

[Corraleno]

It's Social Darwinism and they're not even trying to hide it.

[EmseB]

2 hours ago, Spy Car said:

 

Herd immunity through vaccination isn't the same as "herd immunity" through active infection. Right?

One would save a lot of lives, the other would kill millions of Americans.

Bill

Right. But I'm never sure what people mean when they say herd immunity strategy, because it isn't a strategy, it's what happens when enough people gain immunity to hamper transmission, no?

My thought was that this admin was trying to "warp speed" the vaccine development because they wanted to reach herd immunity via a vaccine for as many people as possible. I had not heard they abandoned that in favor of a natural immunity strategy, which is why the original post confused me.

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, mathnerd said:

I read about the fake signatures on that Great Barrington thing and dismissed it all as another hoax. I just learned that it is real news ... So, off to read about it now ...

It is a thing.

Edited October 15, 2020 by EmseB
Realized I didn't verify a name on the declaration

[Shoeless]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Unfortunately, there seem to be risks other than death, and they are very strangely distributed in the population. I don't want to do this experiment on myself, thank you very much. 

 

Yeah? We're going to staff nursing homes with ONLY people with acquired immunity? And will PCR testing of visitors keep out the virus when TONS of testing didn't even manage to keep the virus out of White House? Remember all the asymptomatic spread and false negatives? 

 

I got news for you: NYC already HAS grocery delivery, and I'm sure elderly people who could afford it used it in March and April. And people got sick anyway, because lots of people don't live alone. 

 

Oh, a detailed list of measures? Tell me more. Because I'm not seeing a detailed list of measures here. Who's implementing this measures? Is someone going to pay for all the groceries delivered to the old people and the testing? Are we providing rooms and services to older folks living with family that has to work? What's your plan, exactly?? 

The plan is for all those drains on medicare, social security, and other public programs to shuffle off this mortal coil.  It's been the plan the whole time.  

 

[Spy Car]

3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Right. But I'm never sure what people mean when they say herd immunity strategy, because it isn't a strategy, it's what happens when enough people gain immunity to hamper transmission, no?

My thought was that this admin was trying to "warp speed" the vaccine development because they wanted to reach herd immunity via a vaccine for as many people as possible. I had not heard they abandoned that in favor of a natural immunity strategy, which is why the original post confused me.

It once meant vaccinating enough people for a virus would be mostly contained, which is a responsible strategy.

The "let it rip" crowd has recently hijacked the term of "herd immunity, while failing to admit that the death toll would be enormous. 2 million deaths in the USA alone. It is a highly irresponsible approach in my estimation. 

Bill

 

[Spy Car]

3 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

The plan is for all those drains on medicare, social security, and other public programs to shuffle off this mortal coil.  It's been the plan the whole time.  

 

Eugenics.

Bill

[Shoeless]

 

1 minute ago, Spy Car said:

It once meant vaccinating enough people for a virus would be mostly contained, which is a responsible strategy.

The "let it rip" crowd has recently hijacked the term of "herd immunity, while failing to admit that the death toll would be enormous. 2 million deaths in the USA alone. It is a highly irresponsible approach in my estimation. 

Bill

 

They know the death toll would be enormous. It's kind of the point.  

[EmseB]

16 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

The plan is for all those drains on medicare, social security, and other public programs to shuffle off this mortal coil.  It's been the plan the whole time.  

 

Where is that tinfoil hat emoji when needed??

I mean, this would have to be a global conspiracy, no? 

It strikes me as the other side of the coin of people saying the entire virus and lockdowns are a hoax perpetuated by governments the world over.

Now it is governments the world over are trying to kill off their old and disabled?

What if it is a bad virus that kills an alarming number of vulnerable people that is neither a sinister plot to kill said people, nor a sinister hoax to destroy the global economy?

Edited October 15, 2020 by EmseB

[Shoeless]

Just now, EmseB said:

Where is that tinfoil hat emoji when needed??

I mean, this would have to be a global conspiracy, no? 

It strikes me as the other side of the coin of people saying the entire virus and lockdownd are a hoax perpetuated by governments the world over.

Now it is governments the world over are trying to kill off their old and disabled?

What if it is a bad virus that kills an alarming number of vulnerable people that is neither a sinister plot to kill said people, nor a sinister hoax to destroy the global economy?

We are NOT talking in this thread about governments the world round.  We are talking about the US government response and the administration's idea of "herd immunity". Do NOT put words in my mouth. 

THE POINT IS THE US GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO ACTUALLY TRY TO IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH AND NOT UNDERMINE IT. YES I AM YELLING. 

It is NOT a global conspiracy, because MOST OTHER COUNTRIES ARE HANDLING THIS BETTER THAN WE ARE.  Other countries are demonstrating that it is possible to have a better response to the pandemic that we are having.  

The country's pathetic response to the virus isn't because "leadership" doesn't understand or it's too hard to manage or no one knows what to do or the virus is just so tricky and weird because it picks on the vulnerable. It's because of a lack of will power to make necessary changes.  WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TRY TO PROTECT THE VULNERABLE AND WE'RE NOT DOING IT.

 

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, EmseB said:

Where is that tinfoil hat emoji when needed??

I mean, this would have to be a global conspiracy, no? 

It strikes me as the other side of the coin of people saying the entire virus and lockdowns are a hoax perpetuated by governments the world over.

Now it is governments the world over are trying to kill off their old and disabled?

What if it is a bad virus that kills an alarming number of vulnerable people that is neither a sinister plot to kill said people, nor a sinister hoax to destroy the global economy?

You missed the point —  it's obviously not a global conspiracy, because most other countries are not trying to kill off their old and disabled. Most other countries are trying to prevent deaths, not shrug them off as good for economy. Bill O'Reilly literally said that most of the people who will die "are on their last legs anyway," so who cares. Others have suggested that the elderly should be wiling to sacrifice themselves for the good of the economy.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, kdsuomi said:

Maybe, but painting it as a nationwide attitude is dishonest. 

I don't think anyone's arguing that everyone's onboard. 

[Moonhawk]

5 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Where is that tinfoil hat emoji when needed??

I mean, this would have to be a global conspiracy, no? 

It strikes me as the other side of the coin of people saying the entire virus and lockdowns are a hoax perpetuated by governments the world over.

Now it is governments the world over are trying to kill off their old and disabled?

What if it is a bad virus that kills an alarming number of vulnerable people that is neither a sinister plot to kill said people, nor a sinister hoax to destroy the global economy?

Yeah, I think the issue is not that the politicians/powers that be/whoever we are talking about literally are looking for a plan to kill those on the dole. 

It's just more convenient and a small detail to them, that's all.

"Never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by apathy, stupidity, greed or selfishness." (paraphrasing...) In this case greed and selfishness with a side of apathy for the effects are probably more likely than maliciously wanting people to die. 

(Personally, the apathy is more worrisome because...well, apathy in leaders seems like a bad trait, yes?, but that's besides the point.)

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

You missed the point —  it's obviously not a global conspiracy, because most other countries are not trying to kill off their old and disabled. Most other countries are trying to prevent deaths, not shrug them off as good for economy. Bill O'Reilly literally said that most of the people who will die "are on their last legs anyway," so who cares. Others have suggested that the elderly should be wiling to sacrifice themselves for the good of the economy.

To be fair, lots of European countries are screwing this up, too. And South American countries, too. It's just disappointing when the US, which has all this infrastructure to handle this, screws this up just like Brazil. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, kdsuomi said:

No, it's only the U.S. government (and sometimes Sweden) that is trying to kill off the old and disabled. Other countries that have skyrocketing cases right now obviously care so much more about their populace than we do. 

Now you look at my post right below yours and tell me that I've said anything of the sort with a straight face. 

[Corraleno]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

To be fair, lots of European countries are screwing this up, too. And South American countries, too. It's just disappointing when the US, which has all this infrastructure to handle this, screws this up just like Brazil. 

Well Bolsonaro is pretty open about his desire to kill off a chunk of Brazil's population, so...