I have read or listened to three different doctors/experts today discussing herd immunity.

 

From the Boston Globe:

 

It’s easy to forget that if a disease can’t be contained — and it’s too late for that in the COVID-19 pandemic — then there’s only one possible ending to the story: We must collectively develop immunity to the disease. In lieu of a vaccine, that means most of us will need to be exposed to the virus, and some unknowably large number of us will die in the process.

 

But the fact remains that herd immunity isn’t merely a possible strategy. In the long run it’s the only strategy. The question, then, is how to get there responsibly.

 

From the Dailywire and Dr. Knut Wittkowski:

 

Shelter-in-place policies could actually result in more deaths in the long term.

 

The general argument made by Dr. Wittkowski is that lockdown orders prolong any efforts in developing so-called herd immunity, which is our only weapon in “exterminating” the novel coronavirus outside of a vaccine, and that could optimistically take longer than 18 months.

 

Herd immunity, Wittkowski argued, would stop a “second wave” headed for the United States in the fall.

 

“If we had herd immunity now, there couldn’t be a second wave in autumn,” he said.

 

=============

 

Also I see where some of our powers that be are looking at herd immunity in California as a possible explanation why California has not been hit as hard but if this is true it would mean the Rona was here in America long before many people believe.

 

I think the point of all this is the Rona is here and we can shelter all we want but the instant we all "go back to normal" the Rona is going to strike again. So absent a vaccine (which most experts believe is over a year away at best) we are either going to have to shelter-in-place for the next 18 months (give or take) or open everything back up.

I have been wondering about this as well. By social distancing, we seem to be putting off the inevitable likelihood that this virus is going to run its course no matter what.

 

Our medical community is learning more and more everyday about how to treat it, and cases are coming in at a much more manageable level. No one wants to be New York or New Jersey. So, I am still in favor of social distancing for now vs the herd immunity theory.

 

I heard a doctor weeks ago say that, as the virus spreads, it becomes more “human” in its genetic makeup. In doing this, the human body can recognize it and fight it better. Haven’t seen that happen yet.

Herd immunity is a terrible idea.

All I know of herd immunity of what has been mentioned on TV, but doesn't it require 70-80% of the population to be infected by the disease?

 

Shoddy math---250 million Americans get the disease

7-10 million American deaths at the current mortality rate.

 

My figures may be way off, but I don't think America will trade 1 million lives for herd immunity much less 10 million.

 

The last time we thought we may lose 1 million American lives we dropped two Atomic bombs, and forever changed the world.

 

With Mumps, Measles, etc. we establish herd immunity with vaccines not get it and recover.

All I know of herd immunity of what has been mentioned on TV, but doesn't it require 70-80% of the population to be infected by the disease?

 

Shoddy math---250 million Americans get the disease

7-10 million American deaths at the current mortality rate.

 

My figures may be way off, but I don't think America will trade 1 million lives for herd immunity much less 10 million.

 

With Mumps, Measles, etc. we establish herd immunity with vaccines not get it and recover.

 

People will say anything to limit their inconvenience.

Herd immunity is a terrible idea.

 

Please explain why herd immunity is a terrible idea?

My wife and are both 60 years old. As mentioned in another thread, she has an immune deficiency. I have a physical condition myself that may or may not hurt me if I catch this stupid virus. We have our first grandchild coming in 3 weeks. We would really prefer to see him, hold him and be a part of his life as he grows up. We're really not interested in being part of the herd that has to die.

Please explain why herd immunity is a terrible idea?

 

I mean unless you are willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Americans. Not to mention, we are still way too early in this particular virus to even know if that would work. Yes in other viruses once you get it you are "immune," but we have no data to support that at this time.

I mean unless you are willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Americans. Not to mention, we are still way too early in this particular virus to even know if that would work. Yes in other viruses once you get it you are "immune," but we have no data to support that at this time.

 

That is the big thing with this. The principle behind it I get, but we are really only a couple months into knowing the word "Coronavirus" (Rona), so it is hard with much certainty to claim this is the solution.

That is the big thing with this. The principle behind it I get, but we are really only a couple months into knowing the word "Coronavirus" (Rona), so it is hard with much certainty to claim this is the solution.

 

And even if that turns out to be true, that we would be immune to it, you still have to be willing to sacrifice potentially millions of Americans.

I mean unless you are willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Americans. Not to mention, we are still way too early in this particular virus to even know if that would work. Yes in other viruses once you get it you are "immune," but we have no data to support that at this time.

 

Not to mention, that herd that gets thinned will likely be from certain socio-economic classes. The poor, those with limited or no access to health care, are going to bear the higher burden of "thinning". Even now, you don't have to look hard to find the rich and famous seem find it remarkably easy to get tested. Yet the average Joe gets sent home without being tested.

The virus is now part of the environment. It will have to be dealt with as such. The last two corona viruses that had high mortality rates (SARS MERS) basically died off as they they did not transmit from person-to-person easily or at all.

 

The goal of all this isolation was to flatten the curve - and keep the hospitals from being overrun. By either over-estimating/modelizing or due to the effectiveness of the actions it seems that that goal is now achieved in most of the country. Unless the goal post moved, the goal was never to use isolation to snuff out to eliminate the virus in total from the environment. Thus, we will all likely be EXPOSED this year. Most with healthy immune systems will deal with it and not even know they were exposed. Some will have a cold-like illness and some will have it worse.

 

Vigilance is currently critical, even with the isolation. And that vigilance and fast action, especially for those in the risk categories, will continue to be needed - basically forever now. It will be a new world going forward. Herd immunity is the only way the number of incidents cuts down in the future. But this higher level of vigilance is now with us - forever.

Not to mention, that herd that gets thinned will likely be from certain socio-economic classes. The poor, those with limited or no access to health care, are going to bear the higher burden of "thinning". Even now, you don't have to look hard to find the rich and famous seem find it remarkably easy to get tested. Yet the average Joe gets sent home without being tested.

 

There is a large number of people that would be fine with what you described, but that's not a discussion for this thread.

The virus is now part of the environment. It will have to be dealt with as such. The last two corona viruses that had high mortality rates (SARS MERS) basically died off as they they did not transmit from person-to-person easily or at all.

 

The goal of all this isolation was to flatten the curve - and keep the hospitals from being overrun. By either over-estimating/modelizing or due to the effectiveness of the actions it seems that that goal is now achieved in most of the country. Unless the goal post moved, the goal was never to use isolation to snuff out to eliminate the virus in total from the environment. Thus, we will all likely be EXPOSED this year. Most with healthy immune systems will deal with it and not even know they were exposed. Some will have a cold-like illness and some will have it worse.

 

Vigilance is currently critical, even with the isolation. And that vigilance and fast action, especially for those in the risk categories, will continue to be needed - basically forever now. It will be a new world going forward. Herd immunity is the only way the number of incidents cuts down in the future. But this higher level of vigilance is now with us - forever.

 

Well stated.

 

As we slowly start to "open things back up" it seems to me herd immunity is "our" modus operandi.

 

What am I missing everyone? Any talk (which there is a lot of) about opening things back up in the near future is obviously relying on herd immunity to get us through this, correct?

What am I missing everyone? Any talk (which there is a lot of) about opening things back up in the near future is obviously relying on herd immunity to get us through this, correct?

 

That depends on what "near future" means.