Cable Forum - View Single Post

**Hugh** · 29-04-2020, 08:28

I thought CF'ers might find this item that I found on Twitter informative - she explains clearly why lockdown (to get the number of infected down) then track and trace is the optimal policy until a vaccine is available (uses US figures, but I'm sure they are the same for us).

https://twitter.com/rachel_elisse/st...17792488062982

Quote:

[B]Rachel Coleman[B] @rachel_elisse - 5:24 PM · Apr 27, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

Guys. Guys. I am seeing people asking why we locked down if the lockdown is slowing our ability to get herd immunity. But herd immunity, absent a vaccine, was never the goal! If we reach herd immunity, it will mean we failed. It would mean 2 million people had died.

To get to herd immunity, AT LEAST 60% would have to have had COVID. (And that assumes having it conveys immunity.) If we assume a 1% fatality rate — which is right in the middle of the 0.6% to 1.5% range most experts have suggested — that is two million people dead.

The point of lockdowns was to AVOID this. Absent a vaccine, herd immunity is NOT THE GOAL. Why? Because herd immunity, absent a vaccine, requires millions of deaths. And unless you staff nursing homes with robots — and that is just the start — you CAN’T shield the vulnerable.

Complaining that the lockdowns are preventing us from getting to herd immunity amounts to complaining that lives are being saved. Absent a vaccine, getting to herd immunity and saving lives are incompatible. We locked down to save lives.

We locked down to prevent to virus from running through our populace, bc that would mean an untold loss of life, and now people are complaining that ... the virus is not running through our populace. What. Nothing has changed! It’s still deadly! That’s why we locked down!

Let me add one thing. NYC has gotten to an infection rate of 20% — a third of what we need to have herd immunity — and that has cost nearly 20,000 lives. Getting to 60% would mean another 40,000 dead in NYC. That is not something anyone should want.

Absent a vaccine, making herd immunity our goal means accepting that millions of people will die. I’m not willing to accept that. I still think we can save many of those lives. How? By slowing the virus’ transmission until we have a vaccine.

The goal of the current lockdown is to flatten the curve both to prevent our healthcare system from being overwhelmed AND to bring the number of infections down to a level where we can control infections through a process referred to as test, trace, isolate.

Maybe the focus on flattening the curve meant there wasn't enough focus on the reason WHY. It was NEVER about preventing our healthcare system from being overwhelmed so that the virus could go through our populace more slowly until we get to herd immunity.

The goal is not just to protect our healthcare system but ALSO to bring the infection rate down so that we can have a shot at that rate low for the next year or more, until we have a vaccine. Test trace isolate doesn't work when we have millions of infections at the start.

Last thing to note: there are some who argue that the virus is less deadly than thought, perhaps no more deadly than the flu. If that were the case, it might make sense to let the virus go. But that also flies in the face of the evidence.

NYC already has a death rate of 0.2%, twice the rate of the flu, FOR THE ENTIRE POPULATION of the city. Bc antibody tests suggest only 20% has been infected, you need to multiply that rate by 5. If every New Yorker caught this, 1 in 100 people IN THE ENTIRE CITY would die.

I get that people want to believe this isn't that deadly so that we can go back to normal, but you can't gaslight a virus. Our options haven't changed -- lock down until case counts are down and then find a new normal with longterm social distancing, or let millions die.