1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Muh Muh Muh My Corona (virus)

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Twirling Time, Jan 21, 2020.

  1. FileNotFound

    FileNotFound Well-Known Member

    Good chance this is true, virus or no virus.
     
    maumann likes this.
  2. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    Click this, scroll down, watch the data viz and see if you still think that: U.S. Virus Cases Climb Toward a Third Peak
     
  3. maumann

    maumann Well-Known Member

    And the weather will eventually force people who can't help but mingle among themselves inside, where the chances of contamination are greater.
     
  4. Justin_Rice

    Justin_Rice Well-Known Member


    That's the thing that worries me about this winter.

    What are people going to do when dining outdoors stops becoming a possibility?
     
    HanSenSE and maumann like this.
  5. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Yep, still think it. Again, there’s something very misleading about using raw case totals to compare the time when testing capacity was measured in hundreds to now when we run over a million per day
     
  6. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    Like the virus, fire will be with us forever but we’ve developed mitigation efforts to contain and control it. Hmmm....
     
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    It would be uncanny if those mitigation efforts weren't effective in places where the virus hadn't run rampant. In those places, as well, people changing their behaviors to not congregate, wear masks, wash hands, etc. kept the virus from spreading.

    What you keep suggesting doesn't gibe with what we empirically know about infectious diseases.

    Herd immunity isn't some mystical term. It means enough people are resistant to the virus that the virus has nowhere to go. FWIW, it doesn't necessarily mean billions of people getting disease (and millions dying). It can be achieved through immunization if there is an effective vaccine. 25 percent is not even close to creating that kind of environment. This is a highly contagious virus. The threshold percentage is going to be way higher than that. With measles, it is close to 95 percent of people needing to be immune to stop transmission. Even if the threshold percentage was say 60 or 65 percent of the population, which may be more hope than reality, nowhere near that percentage of people in New York or Italy have been infected.

    Again, the best evidence of that is that infection rates are taking off again in those places.
     
  8. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member


    So your theory is that if behavior is identical, two otherwise similar populations with 0% infected and 25% already infected will have identical transmission rates?

    like i said, the phrase “herd immunity” has become so politicized and stretched that it’s lost all meaning. If we are being technical, it only applies to vaccine-induced immunity anyway. Even if 100% of people got it today and developed antibodies tomorrow, it wouldn’t be herd immunity under any definition epidemiologists would have used a year ago before their whole field got thrust into the spotlight.
     
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Herd immunity can be observed with infectious disease.

    There is a threashold where once that percentage of people are immune (through infection or vaccination), people who don't have immunity are unlikely to interact with an infected person and become infected themselves. It's typically acheived when something like 70 to 90 percent of people are immune.

    Until you get there, with a highly infectious virus, you are going to have a lot of people getting infected, sick and possibly dying if people interact without changing their behavior.

    In Italy and New York, after that initial blast of infections? Herd immunity didn't stop the spread. We are not anywhere near there. Broad shut downs and people changing their behavior -- masks, limiting gatherings, hand washing. That is what got it under control.

    The new surges are likely because people let their guards down and were not good about those mitigation efforts.
     
  10. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    It should also be noted that immunity from vaccination is distributed more or less randomly, whereas immunity from infection naturally flows to the people whose behavior leads them to the highest likelihood of being infected. So the percentage you would need to effectively lower transmission rates below 1 *is* lower through infection than through immunization. The concept is called “heterogeneity of susceptibility” and a number of peer-reviewed papers have firmly established it in the last few months.

    Certainly not low enough to make it a desirable outcome, and we don’t know for sure what the number is unless we actually achieve it, but I’ve seen most experts coalescing around something like 50% being somewhere in the ballpark.
     
  11. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    At this point, you are blindly copy-pasting 70% correct talking points without actually responding to anything being said.
     
  12. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    I am typing this from an icu waiting room at the above mentioned Univ of Utah hospital and I’m being told by staff that they’ve opened a previously empty floor and made it into a COVID wing. All staff are working 12 on / 12 off and “we can’t keep up.”
    And yes, there is a ventilator wait list.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page