Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh I’m sure they’ll still be out there howling at the moon with those who claim 5G is a mind control device run by the CIA.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:rolleyes:
1) The immune system works by eventually stopping production of antibodies, because they are no longer needed. The required antibody is "memorised" and produced, if and when it is needed. Think about it, it would be ridiculously wasteful of the immune system to constantly produce antibodies for something, it's never ever going to need again.
2) Seasonal flu reoccurs because the virus mutates and presents itself as a new virus. Think about it again, if each year it was the same virus, they wouldn't have to come up with a new flu vaccine each year. There would be just one that was used again and again.
3) Even if any vaccine only works for a few months, that should be long enough for the virus to die out. It would be unable to reproduce.
4) If herd immunity wasn't a fact, then people would've still been dying from Spanish Flu for the past 100 years.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed. In this context we're talking about the study showing that natural herd immunity for CV19 does not exist. ;) i.e., the belief that herd immunity can be acquired without a vaccine by letting Covid 19 run through the majority of the population unhindered in place of the current social-distancing, lockdowns, masks etc is called out as false by this study.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nomanking is right though that you don't necessarily need antibodies present to mount a immune response.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is it?

Or just more unproven speculation?

http://news.sky.com/story/coronaviru...overy-12115510

Then when you actually look behind the headline

I would put the nails away based on that

Re: Coronavirus
 

My reading of it is that it was the associated health complications and recent world events which contributed to the high mortality rate. The Swine Flu outbreak in 2009 is the same strain as the Spanish Flu but I think the outcome was different because of its management.

How much 'herd immunity' factors into that I think it still up for review.

However although we are better at treating effects, the argument is still that we should try and stop it pandemics happening - not aim for 'herd immunity':

https://www.clinicalcorrelations.org...es-a-weakness/
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/195/7/1018/800918

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s still a nail in the coffin for herd immunity either way. It means protecting the vulnerable is impossible unless you propose to lock them up forever.

What happens when you catch it a second, third, fourth time are unknown. Plus giving it billions of opportunities to mutate every year is a significant dice roll.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Immunity DOESN'T mean the virus never ends up in your bloodstream again. After all, how else is the immune system meant to deal with it, if it's not in the blood?:rolleyes:
Once somebody becomes infected for the first time or reacquires the virus, there is a window of time before that person becomes infectious and can pass it onto others. With a first time infection, the immune system takes too long to acquire immunity, and so people reach the infectious stage. With immunity and picking the virus up again, the immune system responds much quicker, and is likely to eliminate it before the person becomes infectious and can pass it onto others.
Herd immunity is about reducing transmission levels. The fewer people who reach the infectious stage, the fewer can become further infected.

Re: Coronavirus
 

However we've never got herd immunity just by letting a disease spread.

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/artic...h-covid19.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

Herd immunity isn't about zero transmission, it's about greatly reducing the chances for transmission.
If only 1 in 100,000 people don't have immunity, then the chance of an infected person passing it on to somebody who isn't yet immune, is a lot less than where only 1 in 10 doesn't.
From your link.

The outbreaks arise from those who don't have herd protection.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My point is that acceptable and lasting herd immunity isn't something that has been achieved without a vaccine, which is what the link above says. Current proponents of herd immunity for Covid-19 want it to happen 'naturally' as an argument for lifting most restrictions before a vaccine is available.

From the 'Great Barrington Declaration':

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not in my opinion. Herd immunity has not been disproved. Worldwide, only a handful of people have succumbed a second time, and the reasons for that are unclear.

Protecting the vulnerable as I meant it does not require locking them up forever, but protecting them until the healthy population has had the virus run through them. This would get us more or less to where we need to be for us all to get back to normal.

Do that, and you minimise the risk of the virus reinfecting people as our defences wear down again, if indeed they do. These lockdowns are increasing these risks by keeping the virus alive for longer. Lockdowns are also increasing the risks of mutation.

---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:33 ----------

Correct.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If there was someone still clutching onto the end of that straw I’d have bet every penny I had on it being Old Boy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Grim figures.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...e-may-12116066

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s a conundrum who to have more belief in - two epidemiological experts, with Ph.Ds from Johns Hopkins, whose primary research interests are in infectious disease, risk behaviors, and translational epidemiology, & infectious disease modeling, health economics, operational and implementation science, and classical epidemiology, or OLD BOY, whose primary research interest in pushing herd immunity with no supporting evidence whatsoever...

btw, witchcraft and wizardry have not been disproved, but due the lack of evidence (much like your position about herd immunity), very few people would put faith in them when treating infectious diseases...;)