Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by rayiner » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

jfrunyon wrote: post #314

EricE wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Having lockdowns can get you back to the point where businesses can safely operate with community spread control measures (see e.g. Australia or Taiwan)." How do you explain Florida, not locked down, vs. California with some of the strictest lock downs in the country having similar rates of death/infection? It's even more of a puzzler for those pushing lockdowns since Florida has a population tilted way more in the…

No. First, how do YOU explain Australia having 900 deaths for 25m people, and the US having OVER FIVE HUNDRED TIMES THAT (499k) for 328m?

It’s an island and regularly shut down air travel to control infections coming in?

The “lockdowns could work if we just tried” view is falsified by the situation in Germany. If Germans lack the discipline to do it, then nobody can do it. Some countries like Australia got lucky because their geography made it easy, but it’s not practical elsewhere.

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

#322

Post by ryandrake » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 10:01 PM UTC

thehappypm wrote: post #103

NovaJehovah wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lockdowns in the US are theater. Because government can't do much to stop the main driver of the epidemic--people meeting friends and relatives behind closed doors--they ban a bunch of stuff that makes very little difference.

I agree with this 100%. The US flavor of lockdowns are just pointless when there is zero enforcement and even in the most locked down places, indoor gatherings are allowed if they're small.

Plus, in the places in the world where they did do lockdowns, lo and behold, they tended to work.

Nothing that was done in the USA could even remotely be described as a lockdown. And none of the so-called orders came close to being effective. Without enforcement, you might as well call your "Stay at home Order" a "Stay at home Suggestion".

Currently, in the state of California, 99.8% of the population is in the purple (aka Widespread) tier [1]. Yet if you go out of your house and look around, you'll see people carrying on, horsing around, and not taking anything seriously. It's like "back to normal but with masks." And this is reportedly one of the more "locked down" states! It's a total farce, and the result of a cowardly government that makes rules for show but is unwilling to enforce them.

1: https://covid19.ca.gov/safer-economy/

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

#323

Post by malandrew » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 10:09 PM UTC

ttul wrote: post #92

danfo wrote: post #25

> Herd immunity has been well-documented in the Brazilian city of Manaus, where researchers in the Lancet reported the prevalence of prior Covid-19 infection to be 76%, resulting in a significant slowing of the infection. What, the linked study proves the opposite. A massive amount of death in Manaus in 2021, despite 'herd immunity' measured in October 2020. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-…

It should be noted that WSJ’s opinion section is extremely politicized. Their regular news desk is separately edited and maintains decently high journalistic standards.

> It should be noted that WSJ’s opinion section is extremely politicized.

All opinion sections of every major news outlet is extremely politicized. In almost all cases, the non-opinion sections are edging towards being extremely politicized as well.

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

#324

Post by ryandrake » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 10:11 PM UTC

spookthesunset wrote: post #313

pessimizer wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing is going to work any better than lockdowns, though. The reason the strategy wasn't ever going to work is because the fear level wasn't high enough. Bump up the death rate so people who can't see past their own nose see some death, and it'll work. Sadly, coronaviruses definitely have the potential to deliver on that. Now that so many people have become infected because lockdowns weren't taken seriously, and be…

> The reason the strategy wasn't ever going to work is because the fear level wasn't high enough The average American 35 year old thinks if they catch covid they have a >10% chance of dying. This is off by almost 1000x. If you drove that error down to 0 so people knew exactly what there risks were if they got covid (i.e. for most healthy adults and children, covid is a complete non-event)... I don't think the general…

I don't know anyone who over-estimated their chances of dying, took precautions, and then regretted over-estimating, but I bet that close to 100% of the people who under-estimated their chances of dying regretted it on their death beds.

Personally, I am not afraid to admit I am scared of a virus that can be transmitted by asymptomatic people, incubates for two weeks, then can kill you, but hey, I guess that just makes me a scaredy-cat. I'm willing to live with that label.

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

#325

Post by spookthesunset » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 10:11 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #280

jdminhbg wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All those things could be true and perhaps banning indoor dining does slow the spread. But is it worth the cost? Why do all these discussions focus only on solving for covid and completely ignoring the costs?

If banning indoor dining across the state of California results in one fewer person getting hospitalized is it worth it? What if it keeps 10 people out of the hospital?

More generalized, how much benefit does a blanket lockdown have to provide for it to be worth the immense costs. I'm using "cost", by the way, inthe most holistic hippy way possible. Costs include:

-- destroyed mental health

-- Peoples life work getting shut down by the government

-- careers development stalled

-- childhood education

-- Cancer research getting sidelined

-- Preventative healthcare checkups being skipped

-- Lost milestones like prom, graduation, awkward teenage dating not happening

-- pets not getting routine care because vet appointments are now a pain in the ass

-- car oil changes being deferred by 3 months

-- adoptions not being performed

-- dating lives being put on hold

-- people putting off having kids

-- infants not seeing human faces can't be good news

-- physical health being put on hold (closed gyms)

-- and on and on and on. It doesn't take much imagination to see the costs are tremendous.

I assert for a lockdown to be worthwhile it has to have such a profound impact on the trajectory of the virus that it is indisputable to the common person. Not only that, but it has to be orders of magnitude better than no lockdown.

If somebody is going to argue "see, lockdowns work... this region did 5% better than that region"... I just roll me eyes. It just means we flushed 11 months of people's lives down the toilet for almost no real gain.

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

#326

Post by spookthesunset » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 10:21 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #183

tinus_hn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, we better destroy the economy with lockdowns while waiting for vaccines that don’t work against these new strains, and then pay the price for herd immunity as well.

I give up. First it's hoax, then it's just a bad flu, then it's going to disappear like magic, then a second wave is impossible, then it's that vaccines aren't necessary and don't work. Meanwhile, people die in their thousands per day and the death toll piles up and hospitals get over-run with dying patients. As for lockdowns, we know from analysis of the Spanish Flu epidemic that cities with successful lockdowns suf…

> Spanish Flu epidemic that cities with successful lockdowns suffered less economically

You realize that during no time when the Spanish Flu was around did they lockdown for 11 months right? The lockdowns you are taking about there are small, localized events. Not huge ones that affected large regions and had year long durations.

The only reason we were able to keep this lockdown afloat is because privileged people like you and me get to work from home and have zoom. Had Covid hit even two decades ago, we wouldn't be doing any of this at all. We'd have sucked it up and got on with our lives as best we could.

> There's no vaccine required to be immune to facts.

You are arguing morality, something which science can help guide but cannot dictate. Science doesn't tell us to lockdown for a year. Society does. Science might provide insight as to what effects a year long lockdown might have (hint: science hasn't a clue... we have no priors to this at all). Science cannot tell us to lockdown. It cannot even tell us to wear masks. That too is a values thing and is guided by what society values.

Even if lockdowns worked and were proven so by a bunch of statistically valid random studies (which don't exist, by the way)... it is still upon a well informed society to decide if it is worth doing (note: I don't think most people are well informed about covid at all... the average person overestimates their risk of covid death by about 1000x).

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

#327

Post by spookthesunset » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 10:27 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #324

spookthesunset wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason the strategy wasn't ever going to work is because the fear level wasn't high enough The average American 35 year old thinks if they catch covid they have a >10% chance of dying. This is off by almost 1000x. If you drove that error down to 0 so people knew exactly what there risks were if they got covid (i.e. for most healthy adults and children, covid is a complete non-event)... I don't think the general…

I don't know anyone who over-estimated their chances of dying, took precautions, and then regretted over-estimating, but I bet that close to 100% of the people who under-estimated their chances of dying regretted it on their death beds. Personally, I am not afraid to admit I am scared of a virus that can be transmitted by asymptomatic people, incubates for two weeks, then can kill you, but hey, I guess that just make…

So are you the type I see blasting through red lights on your bicycle wearing a mask and no helmet? Are you the type of person I see who blindly steps out into a busy street to maintain "proper social distance" when somebody walks by you?

Because risks are everywhere. Overestimating your risks from covid by 1000x results in making some really, really poor risk tradeoffs.

People joke about dudes drinking bleach and stuff but that behavior was because they vastly overestimated their covid risks... so much so they completely disregarded the very real risks of... you know... drinking bleach.

Much more serious examples of bad risk tradeoffs are how many parents are handling their kids. Some of the stuff people are doing to their poor children is downright deplorable. For example keeping them completely isolated from outside contact. All of it is because their perceptions of covid risks are incredibly wrong.

The media and these "experts" have created a huge shadow pandemic of unchecked, irrational fear. Absolutely nobody seems to acknowledge it and we have to tackle it at some point in order to move past this. Unfortunately, it will require these experts to "tell the truth" about the risks of covid instead of hyping every outlier all the time.

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

#328

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

tinus_hn wrote: post #110

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking back at the strategies that different countries have pursued over the last year, the most effective strategy has undoubtedly been to implement a strict lockdown for several weeks, nearly completely eliminating the virus, and then following up with aggressive contact-tracing whenever any case pops up. Countries that have done this have had far fewer deaths and have suffered less economically. The alternatives…

No, the only solution that has worked is being an isolated nation and blocking international travel from the beginning. For 90% of countries that was never an option anyway and for most of the rest that ship has long sailed. The countries that have tried, like Israel, have seen so much success with that strategy they are now in their third lockdown. And that’s with the best vaccination numbers of the world.

China went from having a serious outbreak to essentially zero new cases in just over two months. Australia, Vietnam and New Zealand also brought new cases essentially to nil.

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

#329

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 10:46 PM UTC

tinus_hn wrote: post #138

helge9210 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel is not a good example. Lockdown application here is very uneven. They have nothing to do with the virus and are mainly used by politicians in power to suppress secular way of life and to redistribute business opportunities.

Ah, so the no true lockdown isn’t strict enough.

"Lockdown" can mean anything from closing pubs to mandating that nearly everyone stay home 24/7.

There's no great mystery here. The virus primarily spreads in indoor settings where people breath the same air. A lockdown is only effective to the extent that it stops people from getting into those situations. Closing pubs will reduce transmission a bit, but not nearly as much as telling everyone to stay home.

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

#330

Post by spookthesunset » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 10:48 PM UTC

ruggeri wrote: post #194

theli0nheart wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The comment above is a little mean, but I don't think it's ad hominem to note the author's lack of specific qualification in epidemiology or infectious disease. When I am a non-expert in a complicated subject, I want the advice of experts. When I go to my general practitioner, I want to know they have a certificate that says they went to medical school. When I need open-heart surgery, I want to know the doctor is a c…

Please tell me which epidemiologist "expert" has any expertise in public policy, mental health, business, cancer research, childhood education, restaurant ownership, haircare, finance, law, etc.

Because these lockdowns affect all of those things. Shouldn't "experts" in those fields have a voice in all this too?

Why is the only expert that is allowed to have an opinion worthy of being listened to the esteemed epidemiologist "expert"? Public health is more than the eradication of a specific form of disease, you know. Perhaps getting input from other experts might promote a more balanced take on how to deal with this pandemic.

And hell... plenty of the "expert" doomsday figures aren't epidemiologists at all and people have no problem reposting their announcements. For example if Andy Slavitt of Eric Feigl-Ding wrote an opinion piece on how we should have a ultra-hard lockdown for 6 months, nobody would call into question their expertise at all despite neither of them knowing anything about epidemiology or infectious disease.

By the way, I find it curios that absolutely none of the "experts" we are told to exclusively listen to have lost a single paycheck the entire 11 months this has been going on. Funny, that. Wonder what they would recommend if they stopped getting paid and had to spend two months on hold with unemployment trying to get a human to talk to.