|
|
Post by drystyx on Apr 5, 2020 16:19:17 GMT
Inevitably, probably after about three months, when nearly all documented Americans are tested three times for accuracy, it's likely 80 or 90% will be positive, most of which will have immunity already.
So, if 90% are positive, as is most likely, what can be done for the 10% if it takes a year to make sure a vaccine is safe?
Will that 10% be isolated in small villages until the vaccine is ready?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2020 16:36:31 GMT
If 90% were immune and not able to transmit, I'm not sure there would be a great threat to the 10% who didn't get it. At that percentage, I believe we would have the "herd immunity" that even vaccines provide.
But I'm no epidemiologist.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Apr 5, 2020 18:12:03 GMT
If 90% were immune and not able to transmit, I'm not sure there would be a great threat to the 10% who didn't get it. At that percentage, I believe we would have the "herd immunity" that even vaccines provide. But I'm no epidemiologist. From what I've read, 60% is the target number for herd immunity. |
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Apr 6, 2020 14:22:48 GMT
Well, 80% would mean 2.8 million deaths would it not. so it would be pretty horrific before you even got to the other 20%
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Apr 6, 2020 16:10:09 GMT
Well, 80% would mean 2.8 million deaths would it not. so it would be pretty horrific before you even got to the other 20% Your concern is well founded, and it's scary. Would that many die? Perhaps, but perhaps with the social distancing, we can spread the cases out, and people can be treated, and we'll know how to treat them. If enough of us obey social distance, and lower the number of people deliberately trying to sabotage those of us who do social distance, it could be six months or so before it gets to the point where 80 or 90% are positive. The two main contingencies then are 1. Do those who recover have the virus subdued in such a way that they can't inadvertently spread it to others? 2. Do those who recover not have the virus subdued, and can still carry it to others? Expecting that nearly all documented Americans can be tested at least 3 times for accuracy by 6 months, I hope, and that the above 2 contingencies have an answer, then which people go back out into the work force? Which people will need to live in isolation for many more months to come? Hopefully, with the social distance in use, and it should be enforced in any civilized nation, the hospitals won't be flooded at one time, and maybe we won't have those deaths. I'd love to say "no more deaths", but then we'd just be disappointed to a humongous degree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Apr 6, 2020 16:45:00 GMT
Well, 80% would mean 2.8 million deaths would it not. so it would be pretty horrific before you even got to the other 20% Your concern is well founded, and it's scary. Would that many die? Perhaps, but perhaps with the social distancing, we can spread the cases out, and people can be treated, and we'll know how to treat them. If enough of us obey social distance, and lower the number of people deliberately trying to sabotage those of us who do social distance, it could be six months or so before it gets to the point where 80 or 90% are positive. The two main contingencies then are 1. Do those who recover have the virus subdued in such a way that they can't inadvertently spread it to others? 2. Do those who recover not have the virus subdued, and can still carry it to others? Expecting that nearly all documented Americans can be tested at least 3 times for accuracy by 6 months, I hope, and that the above 2 contingencies have an answer, then which people go back out into the work force? Which people will need to live in isolation for many more months to come? Hopefully, with the social distance in use, and it should be enforced in any civilized nation, the hospitals won't be flooded at one time, and maybe we won't have those deaths. I'd love to say "no more deaths", but then we'd just be disappointed to a humongous degree. Social distancing, correctly applied and lock downs enforced seems to bring the fatalities down to around the 100k number based on around just under 30% becoming infected. So everything is down to enforcement and whether the public do what's best. Those who will have recovered will have immunity for a few months against reinfection as far as we know. Everything beyond that is up in the air. Depends on whether the virus mutates or stays as is and even becomes a regular seasonal offering. Until there is a proper worldwide vaccine people will have to be careful in their interactions but my guess would be that restrictions start seeing up and parts of the economy start up again around late June onwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jul 11, 2020 23:34:59 GMT
Okay, my time line is off. I said 3 months, back in April, and it's been about three months.
It looks like it'll be six months, maybe just five. The way the crowds are forming everywhere, with mask-less people, maybe tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jul 12, 2020 7:31:59 GMT
I think what they call 'herd immunity' would occur if 90% already gotten it. i.e. it's much harder to spread.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 12, 2020 9:27:33 GMT
Inevitably, probably after about three months, when nearly all documented Americans are tested three times for accuracy, it's likely 80 or 90% will be positive, most of which will have immunity already. So, if 90% are positive, as is most likely, what can be done for the 10% if it takes a year to make sure a vaccine is safe? Will that 10% be isolated in small villages until the vaccine is ready? Those small villages have been ready since at least 1979. They're called FEMA camps. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 12, 2020 13:44:49 GMT
"...What would America do?"
Inject them with the Wuhan flu.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 12, 2020 13:48:42 GMT
has the presence of antibodies = immunity actually be proven yet ?
has it been proven that there is no re-infection
think: common cold
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Jul 16, 2020 17:19:03 GMT
Okay, my time line is off. I said 3 months, back in April, and it's been about three months. It looks like it'll be six months, maybe just five. The way the crowds are forming everywhere, with mask-less people, maybe tomorrow. I think that although you are getting a huge spike in cases in the US through lockdown not being handled effectively, those rushing out and contracting it are likely to be the younger and fitter. If you give say a 0.5% fatality rate to those people (more like 3% in the sick and elderly) then you can look at 60k a day positive tests becoming around 2-3thousand deaths a weakfor the foreseeable future. It appears that this is seen as acceptable in the corridors of power. o |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Oct 17, 2020 16:21:25 GMT
Okay, my time line is off. I said 3 months, back in April, and it's been about three months. It looks like it'll be six months, maybe just five. The way the crowds are forming everywhere, with mask-less people, maybe tomorrow. I think that although you are getting a huge spike in cases in the US through lockdown not being handled effectively, those rushing out and contracting it are likely to be the younger and fitter. If you give say a 0.5% fatality rate to those people (more like 3% in the sick and elderly) then you can look at 60k a day positive tests becoming around 2-3thousand deaths a weakfor the foreseeable future. It appears that this is seen as acceptable in the corridors of power. o Yes. See your point. But that point is another fly in the ointment. Nearly every "fit person" knows an unfit person, or is related to one, and visits this person, who visits another person, and so on. That said, looks like a handle has been put on this. I fully expected it to already be in everyone's system by now, so someone is doing something right. This could have been a lot worse. A whole lot worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Oct 18, 2020 13:19:18 GMT
I think that although you are getting a huge spike in cases in the US through lockdown not being handled effectively, those rushing out and contracting it are likely to be the younger and fitter. If you give say a 0.5% fatality rate to those people (more like 3% in the sick and elderly) then you can look at 60k a day positive tests becoming around 2-3thousand deaths a weakfor the foreseeable future. It appears that this is seen as acceptable in the corridors of power. o Yes. See your point. But that point is another fly in the ointment. Nearly every "fit person" knows an unfit person, or is related to one, and visits this person, who visits another person, and so on. That said, looks like a handle has been put on this. I fully expected it to already be in everyone's system by now, so someone is doing something right. This could have been a lot worse. A whole lot worse. You'd be surprised, even in the worst hit areas in Europe where everyone lives close to each other compared to the US, they only reckon about 8% infection rates (that was about a month ago I think) to get anywhere near a herd immunity you'd need about 70%. Unless an effective vaccine turns up fairly soon you can still expect many more deaths sadly. Will save economies a lot in pensions down the road though.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 16, 2020 22:00:11 GMT
Yes. See your point. But that point is another fly in the ointment. Nearly every "fit person" knows an unfit person, or is related to one, and visits this person, who visits another person, and so on. That said, looks like a handle has been put on this. I fully expected it to already be in everyone's system by now, so someone is doing something right. This could have been a lot worse. A whole lot worse. You'd be surprised, even in the worst hit areas in Europe where everyone lives close to each other compared to the US, they only reckon about 8% infection rates (that was about a month ago I think) to get anywhere near a herd immunity you'd need about 70%. Unless an effective vaccine turns up fairly soon you can still expect many more deaths sadly. Will save economies a lot in pensions down the road though. And I'm still not convinced there isn't going to be a relapse effect. A virus is a very unique thing, and this is a unique virus. That was obvious from the start, by what they weren't telling the public.
|
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Nov 16, 2020 23:41:44 GMT
has the presence of antibodies = immunity actually be proven yet ? has it been proven that there is no re-infection think: common cold Current evidence suggests that the antibodies for coronavirus only stay in your system for between 3 to 6 months. So you can get re-infected and there have been multiple cases of people getting re-infected already. The herd immunity theory has already been de-bunked. But they're not making a huge song and dance about it because it's a) a little bit complicated and b) not what people want to hear.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 17, 2020 0:47:12 GMT
has the presence of antibodies = immunity actually be proven yet ? has it been proven that there is no re-infection think: common cold Current evidence suggests that the antibodies for coronavirus only stay in your system for between 3 to 6 months. So you can get re-infected and there have been multiple cases of people getting re-infected already. The herd immunity theory has already been de-bunked. But they're not making a huge song and dance about it because it's a) a little bit complicated and b) not what people want to hear. This is important information.
|
|
