Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 381 posts

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#271

Post by mchusma »

We CAN be at normalcy in the US by April if we do the following: -approve Astrazeneca -First Doses First

If we vaccinate those over 50 who want to be vaccinated, the death rate will plummet about 90%. Then, COVID is similar to flu level of societal death and I don't see any reason most people can't be completely normal. This ignores anti vaxers whose deaths are sad but should probably be considered closer to "negligent deaths" or something.

But this article is just wishful thinking, that boils down to "we expect us to 10x the pace we vaccinate new people over the next 40 days and actual infection rates are 2x what experts think."

I guess I hope he is right but this is probably just fantasy thinking.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#272

Post by helen___keller »

thehappypm wrote: post #91

I really don't think lockdowns have helped a ton in the US. Look at Florida's winter wave of Covid cases vs Massachusetts. The curves are basically identical, despite vastly different pandemic policies. In other countries yes, but in the USA, are there any real data points that can argue that states with strong lockdowns did better than states without? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/massachusetts-co... h…

Which policies in particular are the ineffective one(s), may I ask?

We say "lockdowns" colloquially but it's really a package of policies, such as capacity limits for restaurants, schools potentially closing down, etc. Which ones are the ineffective ones that Massachusetts subscribed to but Florida did not?

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#273

Post by neogodless »

swivelmaster wrote: post #151
theli0nheart wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is textbook ad hominem, and I think is against HN guidelines.

Pointing out that someone is not an expert at something is not an ad hominem.

It does not disprove the claim, but it does put it in perspective, and warn that you shouldn't take the claim with fully understanding it, and, preferably finding reputable analysis or rebuttals.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#274

Post by [deleted] »

user-the-name wrote: post #265
aww_dang wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem becomes how you quantify your opponent's knowledge from a subjective position. How can you prove that they don't know what they are talking about without disputing the points they have made? You must attack the argument, not the person.

No, you really don't. This isn't a mathematical proof. This isn't a formal debate. This is regular, common-sense discussion. Pointing out that a guy who is not an expert in a field is making claims that go against the actual experts in that field is a perfectly reasonable argument, and ignoring it is intentionally blinding yourself.

[deleted]

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#275

Post by pgwhalen »

pavlov wrote: post #206
burlesona wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty weird actually. The news desk for the WSJ is among the best out there. Their news stories tend to be really dry in a good way - full of facts and figures, with very little in the way of click bait hyperbole. Their subscriber model is all about business people who want the details and not opinion... Which then makes the opinion desk at the WSJ a real oddball. It's consistently right-leaning, sometimes to t…

IMO, the Financial Times is a good alternative to WSJ. Global perspective but still does deep dives into American issues; not owned by Murdoch; opinion desk not insane; soothing peach background color in both paper and online editions.

I’m tempted to subscribe, if only it weren’t so comically expensive.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#276

Post by sparrish »

acdha wrote: post #264
sparrish wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for 2020 where it's not even going to reach 100. https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html

Exactly: that’s not because we suddenly hit herd immunity globally but because isolation masks are effective ways to stop respiratory illnesses.

I'm confused by your reply. So masks are helping stop the spread of the flu but not Covid?

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#277

Post by simonh »

jdminhbg wrote: post #269
acdha wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry that you haven’t followed the topic carefully but it’s hardly a logical fallacy to say that not doing what epidemiologists recommended doesn’t mean following their advice wouldn’t have worked, especially when you can look at countries like Australia which did a harder lockdown and have seen the predicted benefits.

So in that case, you're willing to say that under current conditions in the US, mask wearing and restrictions on things like dining are pointless, right? If "lockdown" can only be expected to produce results in its strongest form and we can't do that, that seems like the logical conclusion.

Any improvement over nothing is worth having. Just because the large number of lockdown deniers make the kinds of lockdowns seen elsewhere in the developed world impossible, doesn’t mean the level of compliance that is possible isn’t worthwhile.

The experience from the Spanish Flu, which seems to have similar overall lethality, is instructive. Many developed countries managed to lock down to some extent and keep the death rate from around 0.5% to 1.5% of the population. India failed to manage any significant lockdown at all and the death rate was a staggering 5% of the population.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#278

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

zuminator wrote: post #270
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If lockdown explains most of the variance between Australia's 1k deaths and America's 500k deaths, then the difference between 10% and 20% lockdown should still be very visible.

That doesn't follow. Imagine the effective spread ("Re") of a disease averages 1.5. Certain external factors, such as climate, population density, access to medicine, diet, etc. can cause a 0.2 plus or minus variance in Re. So, 1.3-1.7 range. Each 10% of lockdown will cause a 10% reduction in that amount. So if Florida does a 10% lockdown, its Re will be somewhere in the 1.3-1.7 range reduced by 10% or 1.17-1.53. If…

Makes sense. Thanks for doing out the math, that's pretty convincing to me.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#279

Post by maxerickson »

acdha wrote: post #267
maxerickson wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you respond like this without accounting for the rest of my very short comment?

Because it shows that herd immunity is not a given. Influenza is not only not there but will never be due to the nature of the virus being unusually prone to mutating.

That doesn't address what I said.

There is an argument to be made that various strains are different viruses, and that we have herd immunity to some of them. It wouldn't make sense to invent an English name for each one, but that doesn't mean they should be treated as a single thing in all contexts.

And I even stated it as ambiguous depending on how you count strains, I'm not arguing that there is only one way to look at it!

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#280

Post by acdha »

jdminhbg wrote: post #269
acdha wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry that you haven’t followed the topic carefully but it’s hardly a logical fallacy to say that not doing what epidemiologists recommended doesn’t mean following their advice wouldn’t have worked, especially when you can look at countries like Australia which did a harder lockdown and have seen the predicted benefits.

So in that case, you're willing to say that under current conditions in the US, mask wearing and restrictions on things like dining are pointless, right? If "lockdown" can only be expected to produce results in its strongest form and we can't do that, that seems like the logical conclusion.

That’s like saying that failing to stop your car before you crash means you shouldn’t bother braking at all. Masks have repeatedly been shown to work, indoor dining has repeatedly been shown to be high risk in addition to being an optional luxury, and there’s no world in which we want more spread even if we’d prefer less.
Post reply on HN