If this is the forum for those experts, then yes, I definitely stumbled into the wrong place. I’m just here to read and discuss and to learn and share ideas.
Let me guess. Now you’re going to tell me that Great Debates is actually a court of law?
No, but you seem to be disagreeing with the consensus of most of the actual experts. I’m just curious why. At this point, young people intentionally exposing themselves to build herd immunity still feels kind of reckless.
Another theory I’ve heard is that heard immunity develops once a region goes through a massive outbreak. That’s why places like the NYC region haven’t seen much increase since beginning limited reopenings. Then again, it could also be because many social distancing provisions are still in place.
A few reasons. One, I’m not sure I agree there is consensus among ‘actual experts’ about a whole lot of things, or at least not about anything that isn’t subject to changing freely in a relatively short period of time (as they ‘learn more’ about this ‘novel disease’) or that isn’t obvious (you’re much less likely to be exposed if you stay at home). Two, I’m not dreaming up any ideas on my own, but rather, I’m open to other points of view that I come across. And three, I think we’re going to look back later on the public policy aspects of this and not be impressed with the actions taken, no matter what scientific consensus may eventually transpire.
Maybe, but I don’t see why it’s not worth at least considering. The present environment seems prone to squelching any ideas that don’t neatly fit one point of view, which would seem a dangerous approach in most other settings. Myself, I’m swayed by the argument that we are willingly and freely and perhaps even eagerly undertaking a number of other actions that are, in other respects, equally if not much more reckless.
…you do realized it has been considered, haven’t you? You aren’t going to get herd immunity without a vaccine. Young people intentionally exposing themselves will only get young people and the people they interact with sick.
There is nothing dangerous in squelching ideas that will get people killed. There is a time and a place for the marketplace of ideas. The early stages of a global pandemic is a bad time to propagate dangerous conspiracy theories. It isn’t enough to have an idea that “don’t fit neatly into a point of view.” You need to bring evidence and data to the table.
And what would these other actions be?
Those would be the actions that have resulted in countless people not getting proper healthcare and countless others thrown into, or at least toward, poverty and all that that entails.
I’m talking about the same evidence and data that anybody else is, at least in terms of what is publicly available. The data is in many cases incomplete, as I think everyone would agree, but even in cases of perfect data, what I’m talking about is what we do with that data, what choices we make. We could all agree, for example, that one in ten thousand children may die from a virus they got at school and would have survived had they stayed home, and we could still have a raging debate about what to do with that information. You would not be anywhere near the only one, though, who seems to believe that ‘evidence and data’ is what will save us from this thing.
…can you be a bit less waffly than this? How about some specifics?
You’ve pivoted.
The discussion was about “young people intentionally exposing themselves to build herd immunity still feels kind of reckless.” That is a long way away from “one in ten thousand children may die from a virus they got at school.”
Lets not get distracted here. We all should agree that we aren’t going to get to herd immunity without a vaccine. That’s what the science says. If you believe that isn’t the case, if you want to advocate for “young people intentionally exposing themselves to build herd immunity” then you better be bringing data and evidence to the table.
It sounds like there is something about the term ‘herd immunity’ that you are getting hung up on. Maybe it will help if I tell you what I, at least, mean when I talk about it. What I mean is the virus running its natural course, meaning eventually infecting the majority of people, and likely surviving into perpetuity as something like influenza or the ‘common cold’. So no, I’m not talking about something that magically protects most people. Yes, I’m talking about something most people ‘get sick from’, as you put it.
And yes, I suspect there is at least reason to consider whether the under-30 cohort presently alive might be better off in the long run by confronting this virus now, while their immune systems are stronger than they will be in their later years. I’m not suggesting there is any data for that, no. What data could there be? Apart from maybe the notion that one of the reasons the Spanish Influenza was so deadly was that there was little (comparatively little, compared to the modern day) immunity gained from prior exposure to related bugs in that much less globalized world. But yes, that would be entirely speculation, I suppose. I don’t pretend to offer data. I only mean to suggest that maybe it’s worth thinking about. And then we might go on to add whether their non-avoided exposure, in that scenario, might also convey benefits to those over 30 today.
The school deaths thing is an unrelated argument, which I tried to use as an example of how people could look at the exact same data, when it is clearly available or at least agreed on, and arrive at different conclusions.
…are you aware how many people would have to die in order for Covid-19 to “run its natural course?”
If there is no data available, then what are you basing your suspicions on? The present environment is indeed prone to squelching ideas based on no data. That’s a good thing, isn’t it?
But we have already thought about it. And we’ve dismissed it. Because as you admit all you are doing is speculating. Based on zero data. You aren’t bringing anything to the table.
It was a pivot and a diversion. We aren’t “looking at the same data.” You’ve literally just admitted that no data exists.
I’m of the opinion that we’re going to find out, I’m afraid to say. I do not put a lot of faith in social distancing, facemasks, or lockdowns to eliminate or even widely suppress the virus in the long run. Vaccines may end up changing the game, as it were, but I don’t know that they’ll be able to outrace it.
As for the rest of your reply…yes, I’m speculating. I already said that. If you need me say it again, I guess I will: I’m speculating. I’d like to see more ideas up for more discussion. I believe that for most intents and purposes, we’re all speculating, one way or another. I stand by every opinion I’ve put forth, though. I have no need to pivot or divert at all with you. Please forget the part about how we might not be able to agree on whether one student death in ten thousand should result in one response or another. If it makes you feel better, get back to the part where I suggested that the world would be a better place if the under-30 crowd didn’t do everything they could to avoid the virus. I think it’s an interesting thought experiment, and I stand by it.
…I live in a country that has eliminated Covid-19. We did it by locking down harder than any other country in the OECD and just a few months later (apart from our borders) we are open for business. Unemployment is well below forecast. Schools are open. Stadiums are packed. The science has spoken.
The science of a lockdown and social distancing isn’t disputed. If you lockdown properly and maintain social distancing you can substantially reduce the rate of spread. And most of the rest of the world has successfully been able to do this. That America can’t do this isn’t evidence that “social distancing, facemasks, or lockdowns” aren’t effective. There is no reason to “not have faith” in the science because the science is pretty clear here.
And even if you don’t have faith, America is attempting to mitigate Covid-19’s spread. So you “aren’t going to find out.” Because even as bad as it is it won’t get to the point where it will simply “run its course.”
Except that we aren’t. We know that lockdowns and social distancing and facemasks are effective. We know that we aren’t going to get to herd immunity without a vaccine. We know that if you intentionally get young people sick, all that will do is get young people sick and get other people sick.
This isn’t a “both sides” debate. Your ideas are getting “squelched” because they deserve to get squelched. You are allowed to both hold and express bad opinions. But if you do express them then don’t be surprised if you get challenged on those opinions.
I can say with complete confidence that the thought of the under-30 crowd not doing everything they could to avoid the virus does not make me feel better. This isn’t an interesting thought experiment. Its a terrifying thought experiment.
We’re speculating when we’re trying to determine (let’s just assume they do indeed work, everywhere, every bit as well as you think) whether they are worth the cost.
Well, you can ‘know’ all you want, and you can call it (or not call it) what you want, but the data clearly shows that the virus stopped spreading exponentially in hard-hit places, and I have no qualms at all about walking out on what I think is the very thick limb that says it will eventually do the same everywhere else it ends up spreading.
…another pivot. In the post I responded to you said nothing about “the cost.” But if cost is what you are worried about, then you should be looking to New Zealand, that locked down hard and early, is now back open again with (currently) only 4% unemployment.
You’ve reached the conclusion that the reason the virus stopped spreading in hard hit places is because those places were hard hit. I don’t think that’s a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence that is available. Why do you think that is reasonable?
And if we were to assume you were correct for the purposes of debate: there are two ways you can get the virus to “stop spreading.” You can lockdown properly for several incubation periods and slowly open up, or you can just let people die and eventually it will all “come right.” I prefer the “saving lives” approach to the “let them die” approach, but YMMV.
I’m done with you on this, at least for now. I don’t think you are earnestly trying to have a productive discussion. I think you are, and always have been, one-note. Yes, we all know what has happened in New Zealand. And no, we don’t all agree that it is a good model for the rest of the world. But you certainly stay steadfast in your beliefs. I do not want to disabuse you of them.
Just to be clear - that’s not either/or.
A larger fraction of those out and about most with full or even partial immunity from new infections, means that less severe restrictions can keep R close to or under 1. New York without whatever fraction is now immune and current level of “social distancing” might be having a rapid rise in new cases; New York with that fraction and no such distancing might also be seeing significant rise. They have herd immunity for the interaction conditions that exist there right now, and maybe for somewhat more liberalized conditions. The latter can only be found out by cautiously moving the edge.
Not going to waste my energy with most of the off the rails you go on about, but this one statement is so wrong that it cannot stand without comment.
No that is nothing like what the science says.
Both vaccination and populations having enough people (whatever that enough turns out to be, still an unknown) infected, will lead to decreased rates of new infections and have the potential to drive R to 1 or less. Neither is felt likely to result in the virus completely going away. The advantage of highly effective, safe, widely utilized, vaccination programs (when they actually exist) is that they potentially get there with less morbidity and mortality than enough people getting infected. And even vaccination programs short of those efficacy and utilization marks can at least blunt the severity of harms.
Worth praying for (if one does that sort of thing). Imprudent to depend on as something in the near term future.
…except I’ve already provided five cites in this thread that say essentially, yes it does. Here are some more.
Yes, you can get to herd immunity via infection. But as a practical matter we aren’t going to get there via infection with this pandemic (and my comment was specific to this pandemic) because the numbers simply don’t work. In most of the rest of the world social distancing, lockdowns and best practice have helped to reduce the spread. Its not that the science says that “herd immunity via infection is impossible.” It’s the science says “we are not going to get to herd immunity without a vaccine because mitigation efforts have largely been successful.”
…says the person who has been repeatedly (in this thread and others) been advocating for a position that they admit is entirely speculation and based on no evidence or data. Your position, that you"do not put a lot of faith in social distancing, facemasks, or lockdowns to eliminate or even widely suppress the virus in the long run", is about as “one-note” as you can get.
I have consistently stated that no, this isn’t a “good model” for the rest of the world and that a lot of what we did here,as a practical matter, wouldn’t be able to be done everywhere. So I’m not entirely sure what it is you “don’t agree with me on.”