Herd Immunity was it viable?

Report from Spain is 5% with antibodies, 11% in Madrid. They've had it bad, so those results are not encouraging.
The test is based on just 90k people. 0.2% of the population, whatever the study says, i havent read it yet just the headlines, that is not a number that can get close to giving any kind of actual scientific understanding. I cant remember whether it was the CDC or the WHO who stated that at least 10% of the population needs to be tested in order to start making scientific predictions
 
Fair enough but i simply dont think back of fag packet maths should be anyway to treat public health☺.
Im not saying you lock down for 18 months or more.
Most Countries in Europe are now relaxing a little to see the impact. Surely a wait & see policy is preferable than a fools rush in one?
Lets be serious we have barely done 2 months of a rather relaxed 'lockdown'.
How far do you stop anything ever will always be a matter of opinion on any subject. Without antibiotics many would die before 40? Without Vaccines more people die, some disagree though?

Whos to say that effective drug treatment to make a massive difference & save lives will not be available in a relatively short space of time, months?


Whilst far from ideal all we actually know at the moment is that it has killed a lot of people but we can halt the spread of the virus if sensible precautions are taken.
So i advocate being sensible certainly until we have more clear evidence.

If in the future we have more reliable evidence supporting an acquired immunity approach then fair enough that may be an option but not at the moment.
When I said back of a fag packet,what I meant was figures calculated based upon the actual recorded figures up to this point and based on the unlikely scenario of 100% of the under 50's population contracting the virus. Interestingly only 1 child of school going age has died from this virus in the UK.

I agree that, due to our initial 'fools rush in' policy (something that Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance were both keen to avoid or so they said) that we are now forced to adopt a trial and error approach on the way back out. They did try to phase us into this, in order to messure the effectiveness of each measure TBF, but the British Public kind of took matters into our own hands, due to media pushing their own agenda.

We have done 2 Months of a relaxed lockdown and whilst I think that our overall approach could have been better, I don't think that it is all bad. I think we have now accepted that complete suppression of the virus within our communities is particularly desirable and that in order to avoid a signifcant 'bounce back' during the more dangerous autumn/ winter period, that we need to expose a controlled number of people to the virus over the coming months.

We have also bought ourselves some thinking time, having already wasted much of the three month planning time that we had to procure medical supplies, PPE, ramp up our testing capability and devise an appropriate plan to protect our nusring home population. So I suppose we had to use the Hammer to crack a nut approach in the end, because we had backed ourselves into a corner, with no other options.

There are medications out there, which seem to be proving succesful, though unfortunately there does appear to be a clear policy in certain countries to avoid the use of anything that won't earn money for the Pharmaceutical industry and focus on finding a rushed vaccine or other intervention that is subject to a strong patent.

Interestingly, did you know that it is possible that the process of extending the curve and therefore the life of the virus in itself may actually pose signifcant risk to life? Not only does the process of lockdown, long term isolation of the population and ongoing anxiety & economic downturn have immediate and long-term implications on health, but also the virus itself has an opportunity to learn and mutate to become more efficient within the human population. By contrast, by allowing the natural epidemioliogical cycle to progress, in theory we deal with the virus quickly and efficiently (as we are designed to do) thereby eradicating it before it has a chance to mutate.
 
The test is based on just 90k people. 0.2% of the population, whatever the study says, i havent read it yet just the headlines, that is not a number that can get close to giving any kind of actual scientific understanding. I cant remember whether it was the CDC or the WHO who stated that at least 10% of the population needs to be tested in order to start making scientific predictions
It's actually a huge random sample of people and will produce very good quality results. It's probably one of the most extensive studies so far, so the results should definitely be respected. 👍
 
Yes just seen that.... Odd that Valance was suggesting that we had 10% in London and 3-4% elsewhere from testing conduted around 31 March, when the UK had only 22,000 confirmed cases. The German figures and New York figures also much higher than Spain... We should see some results from our own antibody study any time too.

What I find really concerning is how Valance apopears to have completely changed his mind about the whole immunity position. There has been no scientific change at all regarding the nature of any potential immunity yet on the linked interview (back in the day) he was assured that 60% infected would achieve herd immunity and protect from infection, yet more recently he is now suggesting that antobodies for coronaviris may only bring partial immunity.... Are these people being pressured to promote a vaccine based solution?

I think he was talking generally at first. With an R of 2-3, which was the initial thoughts, 60% would be around the right figure. This will be true for a vaccine too. Remember that scientists are much more accepting that things change with new evidence.
 
The test is based on just 90k people. 0.2% of the population, whatever the study says, i havent read it yet just the headlines, that is not a number that can get close to giving any kind of actual scientific understanding. I cant remember whether it was the CDC or the WHO who stated that at least 10% of the population needs to be tested in order to start making scientific predictions
It's the most comprehensive study undertaken so far
 
I think he was talking generally at first. With an R of 2-3, which was the initial thoughts, 60% would be around the right figure. This will be true for a vaccine too. Remember that scientists are much more accepting that things change with new evidence.
Yes, I get that, my understanding (and correct me if I am wrong) is that herd immunity could be influenced by the population density too (i.e. the R rate is effectively lower in less densely populated areas and therefore less people needed for herd immunity to develop).

What worries me a bit is the shift from natural immunity towards a vaccine....I'd imagine (and again correct me if I am wrong) that even if natural immunity was only partial, that there would still potentially be a herd immunity effect, due to a kind of 'rolling immunity' and that even once the initial immunity of 2-3 years had passed, their would still be some remaining 'memory in our cells' which would enable us to respond better to any future infection.

I'm looking for example at the statistic for kids, which based upon the UK data as it stands shows a risk of something like 1/500K -1M of a school age child dying from covid19 (having caught it)...Surely a vaccine would present potentially greater risk than this? I mean kawasaki disease (as we are seeing in some kids) is often a reaction to vaccine. On that basis I'd have thought that exposing the kids to the virus itself may well present less risk than exposing them to a vaccine....
 
My back of fag packet calculation suggests that infecting 100% of under 50's would result in around 8,000 deaths.. (6000 of which would be over 40). Short of locking down completely for 18 Months or more until a vaccine, I'd imagine a large proportion of these deaths are going to occur anyway.

I get where you are trying to come from with the whole 'every life is precious' routine, but if that's the mantra, then where do you stop ever? Do we lock down because one child might run in front of a car and get killed? do we stop eating food because it represents a choking hazzard?

At some point a balance is reached with a level of acceptable risk to protect our way of life...Let's face it, we have thrown millions of young lives at wars to protect the very freedoms that we are currently chucking away.
Spot on Dazzler
 
Yes, I get that, my understanding (and correct me if I am wrong) is that herd immunity could be influenced by the population density too (i.e. the R rate is effectively lower in less densely populated areas and therefore less people needed for herd immunity to develop).

What worries me a bit is the shift from natural immunity towards a vaccine....I'd imagine (and again correct me if I am wrong) that even if natural immunity was only partial, that there would still potentially be a herd immunity effect, due to a kind of 'rolling immunity' and that even once the initial immunity of 2-3 years had passed, their would still be some remaining 'memory in our cells' which would enable us to respond better to any future infection.

I'm looking for example at the statistic for kids, which based upon the UK data as it stands shows a risk of something like 1/500K -1M of a school age child dying from covid19 (having caught it)...Surely a vaccine would present potentially greater risk than this? I mean kawasaki disease (as we are seeing in some kids) is often a reaction to vaccine. On that basis I'd have thought that exposing the kids to the virus itself may well present less risk than exposing them to a vaccine....
I think the issue we have here is that the R number and herd immunity have previously only been considered in terms of vaccination and used as a guide to the percentage who must be vaccinated to stop transmission. When it starts to be used in the context it is now I'm not sure it is very meaningful. Maybe better to think in terms of transmissibility.
As you say, it will be higher in areas of increased population density and also indoors. I guess the outbreak in Skye is a good example. No community transmission of note and then it gets into a care home and over 40 people suddenly have it. Super spreaders are most likely to be passing it around rather than random individuals, just because they have more opportunity to do so. It's why social distancing works. It would cut down the numbers of flu victims and those catching common colds too.
In term of immunity, it's difficult, as not much is known yet. It hasn't been around long enough for one thing. It seems many people do not produce a high number of antibodies.
In terms of children, there are theories that their innate immune system is very effective against the virus because it hasn't had to deal with many other pathogens. It's fit and raring to go. With age, the innate system may not be as responsive, it's a bit weary after contending with a lifetime of attack.
Researchers are coming up with bits and pieces all the time but the jigsaw is still way off being finished. There is also a lot of poor research being published on Preprint servers which is picked up by the media to push agendas.
A vaccine may be possible or it may not.
Another issue is the immune system in some people goes into overdrive creating a cytokine storm. Why some are susceptible and others less so needs to be understood. Not all of the very old die, some do recover. There are so many facets to this problem. Not many answers, lots of questions.
It's to be hoped there is a degree of immunity however small.
 
Last edited:
When I said back of a fag packet,what I meant was figures calculated based upon the actual recorded figures up to this point and based on the unlikely scenario of 100% of the under 50's

Interestingly, did you know that it is possible that the process of extending the curve and therefore the life of the virus in itself may actually pose signifcant risk to life? Not only does the process of lockdown, long term isolation of the population and ongoing anxiety & economic downturn have immediate and long-term implications on health, but also the virus itself has an opportunity to learn and mutate to become more efficient within the human population. By contrast, by allowing the natural epidemioliogical cycle to progress, in theory we deal with the virus quickly and efficiently (as we are designed to do) thereby eradicating it before it has a chance to mutate.

Ok You say the under 50s Why because it works best for the stats? 😜 or is that your chosen cut off for 'worthy lives' what about the 50-70 year olds?
It seems that you may be more an advocate of the herd immunity style approach because it supports what you want & your way of thinking? Others may see this as the height of selfishness? You can have any 'theory' you like and thats all fine & dandy. However until these 'theories' are backed up with proven verified scientific evidence thats all they are.
As yet there is simply not enough data & confirmed evidence on the virus full stop, let alone the results that a herd immunity approach would produce.
So essentially you are going out on a wing & a prayer with public health because it 'suits you sir'.

There is also the thinking that the virus may mutate into a less severe form in the future, in fact that maybe more likely, so why not see. Surely that would be a good thing?

Also for acquired immunity if that was adopted how do you persuade people to go out take the risk? You say 60% is needed but that is the lower end of the estimate, some are suggesting 80%.

Just because some are happy to go out & 'get it' doesnt mean the majority of the population will, Do you honestly think its practical with what has been reported on the news in the last few months? Even if the mortality rate was proven to be on the low end of the estimates Its still imho a very hard sell to the general public. You really think 10s of millions will go & buy into this get the virus way of thinking?

This would obviously be even more unlikely if no other major Countries decided this was the way forward & the UK went alone.

So in essence Its a theory that doesnt seem viable or practical to me certainly at this time.
 
It's actually a huge random sample of people and will produce very good quality results. It's probably one of the most extensive studies so far, so the results should definitely be respected. 👍
in comparison to most studies it is quite large but in relation to the size of the population, and the subject matter and the various statistical biases which will have to be taken into consideration it will at best provide a loose guideline. It is better than nothing, and testing HAS to be done, governments need to do millions of tests. I wrote a white paper a couple of years ago for a government on how small research studies are usually extrapolated incorrectly and with presuppositional bias and this is no different. Better than nothing but not enough. the point i would make caution needs to be applied both to the research and the situation.
 
Ok You say the under 50s Why because it works best for the stats? 😜 or is that your chosen cut off for 'worthy lives' what about the 50-70 year olds?
It seems that you may be more an advocate of the herd immunity style approach because it supports what you want & your way of thinking? Others may see this as the height of selfishness? You can have any 'theory' you like and thats all fine & dandy. However until these 'theories' are backed up with proven verified scientific evidence thats all they are.
As yet there is simply not enough data & confirmed evidence on the virus full stop, let alone the results that a herd immunity approach would produce.
So essentially you are going out on a wing & a prayer with public health because it 'suits you sir'.

There is also the thinking that the virus may mutate into a less severe form in the future, in fact that maybe more likely, so why not see. Surely that would be a good thing?

Also for acquired immunity if that was adopted how do you persuade people to go out take the risk? You say 60% is needed but that is the lower end of the estimate, some are suggesting 80%.

Just because some are happy to go out & 'get it' doesnt mean the majority of the population will, Do you honestly think its practical with what has been reported on the news in the last few months? Even if the mortality rate was proven to be on the low end of the estimates Its still imho a very hard sell to the general public. You really think 10s of millions will go & buy into this get the virus way of thinking?

This would obviously be even more unlikely if no other major Countries decided this was the way forward & the UK went alone.

So in essence Its a theory that doesnt seem viable or practical to me certainly at this time.
I cut it off at 50 because it is at that point when the mortality rate starts to get unacceptably higher based on the figures produced by the ONS. A 50 year old would still fit into the 1/1000 or less range, whereas a 70 year old would be more like 1/75. It has nothing to do with worthiness of life and so I'm not too sure where you are coming from there? I am saying that we could afford to allow the population below aged 50 to engage in normal everyday life and develop immunity, with fairly limited health impacts, whilst protecting the vulnerable.

By adopting that kind of approach, you would limit the Health impacts and develop immunity, whilst not necessarily imposing any greater risk or imposition on the older / vulnerable population than at present and with the added bonus of achieving a protective immunity sooner rather than later.

We have several million years of evidence proving the 'theory' that we develop immnuity through exposure to bacteria and viruses and scientists are very well aware of the cycle of respiritory illness. This isn't something new in the context of human history and evolution..It's not even something new to our generation.

It doesn't particularly 'suit me' either and that's not really why I think it is a good idea. I believe it suits the way in which we naturally deal with disease and that based on what I have read and heard, I believe it gives us the best chance of moving back to normality (not new normality) but real normal human behaviour, the sort that is in our long term interests as a species.

Are you sure that it isn't you and the rest of those who are essentially forcing kids to miss education and proper socialisation as well as setting up society for some kind of weird robotic temperature measured, wherabouts monitored, drug injected, hand sanitiser swilling, immune suppressant future are not the ones who are being selfish?

Even if 60% of the population is necessary to develop full herd immunity, even at levels of 40 or 50% the transmission of the virus would be massively suppressed.

I'm not sure it is practical any more because I think that the media and to a certain extent the Govermernment have got normal rational people completely frozen with fear and to that extent, we have lost all sense of sound judgement and traded it in for so called 'safety'. I read today that the Unions and Schools are already talking about social distancing for kids in schools and basically conjuring up ways to prevent our kids from developing the natural immunity they should be free to aquire, despite practically zero risk to their health... Frankly it is disgusting to do this to these kids... Millions of young lives missing out on normal activity for absoltely no good reason whatsoever, not allowed to be close to other kids, taught that close contact is dangerous....No doubt mentally scarred for life with this utter bullshit!! Never mind though... Just as long as they don't get it and 'infect and kill and old person'

So we're fucked...This virus and the madness that goes with it are likely to be stuck with us forever... A whole generation of kids screwed up millions of lives spent in some kind of virtual reality shitty excuse for real life, just because we're all scared shitless of a virus that if the entire population of under 50's in the UK were exposed would result in a few thousand deaths (around maybe 20 of which might possibly be under 16, in a worst case scenario)....More people die in the UK every single week.

So no.... The solution is that we expose the population, including kids, no doubt, to a rushed vaccine and we'll play Russian Roulette with that instead.

Happy Apocolypse👍

P.S. It seems over 65% of the population are under 50 in the UK
 
Last edited:
I cut it off at 50 because it is at that point when the mortality rate starts to get unacceptably higher based on the figures produced by the ONS. A 50 year old would still fit into the 1/1000 or less range, whereas a 70 year old would be more like 1/75. It has nothing to do with worthiness of life and so I'm not too sure where you are coming from there? I am saying that we could afford to allow the population below aged 50 to engage in normal everyday life and develop immunity, with fairly limited health impacts, whilst protecting the vulnerable.

Its a 'nice idea' but as nothing has yet been proven re the effects of acquired immunity as of now . So It cannot be done. Im not saying it may not be a way forward?

Are you sure that it isn't you and the rest of those who are essentially forcing kids to miss education and proper socialisation as well as setting up society for some kind of weird robotic temperature measured, wherabouts monitored, drug injected, hand sanitiser swilling, immune suppressant future are not the ones who are being selfish?

Even if 60% of the population is necessary to develop full herd immunity, even at levels of 40 or 50% the transmission of the virus would be massively suppressed.

I'm not sure it is practical any more because I think that the media and to a certain extent the Govermernment have got normal rational people completely frozen with fear and to that extent, we have lost all sense of sound judgement and traded it in for so called 'safety'. I read today that the Unions and Schools are already talking about social distancing for kids in schools and basically conjuring up ways to prevent our kids from developing the natural immunity they should be free to aquire, despite practically zero risk to their health... Frankly it is disgusting to do this to these kids... Millions of young lives missing out on normal activity for absoltely no good reason whatsoever, not allowed to be close to other kids, taught that close contact is dangerous....No doubt mentally scarred for life with this utter bullshit!! Never mind though... Just as long as they don't get it and 'infect and kill and old person'
Yes im loving it😜. Perhaps they have scared everybody shitless We all agree it sucks, I hate it tbh.

Young people are adaptable & have their whole life ahead of them so it should be no hardship to sit on their xbox😜 learn a bit of responsibility and protect older folk for a bit. Surely its more important to get the oldies out and about more as they have less time left lol 🤣👍


So we're fucked...This virus and the madness that goes with it are likely to be stuck with us forever... A whole generation of kids screwed up millions of lives spent in some kind of virtual reality shitty excuse for real life, just because we're all scared shitless of a virus that if the entire population of under 50's in the UK were exposed would result in a few thousand deaths (around maybe 20 of which might possibly be under 16, in a worst case scenario)....More people die in the UK every single week.

So no.... The solution is that we expose the population, including kids, no doubt, to a rushed vaccine and we'll play Russian Roulette with that instead.
I get ya but whose to say you need to be exposed to either the virus or the Vac? Lets just all keep our fingers crossed & it will blow over or mutate in a nice way in the next few months? Its the British way👍 Bsides Its all down to 5g really anyway innit 😜🤣
Happy Apocolypse👍

P.S. It seems over 65% of the population are under 50 in the UK
I wish i was young again!! lol
😜
 
Back
Top