Are we being slow-rolled towards herd immunity?

[Shermann]

Let's assume Trump's Three Phase Plan moves forward in all 50 states and there is significant testing and contact tracing. I think a R-Naught value of 1.5 is possible and may even be optimistically low. This would have us at 200 million cases in 200 days according to the SIR model.

Assuming another optimistic mortality rate of 1%, this gets us right back to the 2 million deaths. The number of hospitalizations might be 40 million. That's a big big number but over 200 days and across 50 states might be weatherable. The amount of suffering would be uncalculatable.

So I think what they are not saying is that Plan A is to gamble on there being therapeutics and pharmaceuticals and vaccines by then to chip away at these numbers. Keeping the shutdown in place is of course gambling with the economy as well.

Plan B is for herd immunity to eventually kick in if Plan A fails. The public isn't going to go for this, so Trump needs to come out and make anti-herd statements, which he has done. So we'd have to be slow-rolled towards it. In fairness, all parties want Plan A to work. So these two gambles can be spun as being equivalent. Are they?

From a purely military perspective, both Plan A and Plan B are better long term than China's Plan C, which is to maintain a high degree of population susceptibility through draconian controls. Just think of how disadvantaged they will be trading with bordering countries having herd immunity if the vaccine is delayed or a total bust.

[hurple]

12. Realistically we can't

A vaccine is, at best, 18 months away. Realistically we cannot quarrantine, to the level we are now, for the entire 18 months. That's just not sustainable.

[Ex Lurker]

19. People are already starting to ignore the lockdowns

And not just the rightwing protesters. The country is approaching the limif of what it's willing to put up with. Trump is egging it on, but it would be happening without him. It is what it is.

[democrattotheend]

21. Exactly. Not to mention, most people don't have enough of a financial cushion

And those who have even a bit saved are seeing it wiped out. $1200 is only going to go so far. Not everyone who is saying this isn't sustainable is greedy. It isn't greedy to be concerned about paying your rent or mortgage, feeding your family, watching your retirement savings get wiped out. It's crazy that it seems suddenly Republicans talk about poverty more than we do (not that I think they actually give a crap).

Also, I'm concerned about the consequences of people being forced to put off other health care for months on end. We can't be "all coronavirus, all the time" for 18 months.

[underpants]

2. I get your question but there is no evidence of immunity

None.

The whole thing strikes me as a pay day loan. We are banking on suddenly changing our habits, our stripes and fixing what created the crisis in the first place. IF there is a miraculous vaccine then we will be clear. There may never be a vaccine and there is no immunity so we just keep paying interest on money we never had.

[Shermann]

8. I wouldn't say there's NO evidence

They know there ARE CV-19 antibodies, as they have been detected and presumably are the reason really sick people sometimes recover.

How long they persist is not known precisely, but again there are generalizations that can be made.

We certainly don't know enough.

[underpants]

11. 👀

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/17/who-issues-warning-on-coronavirus-testing-theres-no-evidence-antibody-tests-show-immunity.html

[Shermann]

15. The WHO statement is a warning which is accurate

But it is not accurate to say the hypothesis which best fits known science is that there is no naturally acquired immunity to CV-19.

[Politicub]

13. Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx will not say there is immunity after infection

It may be true, but there’s not enough data or time to know. And they are the experts.

You may wish it to be true, but we don’t know enough yet.

[beachbumbob]

3. mostly yes.

So it will be up to each of us to protect ourselves as best we can until we see massive immunity tests given AND a viable vaccine available. We were never going to be shutdown for any extended period of time to begin with. The next round of pandemic won't be a surprise and hopefully all prepared for it.

[Dave in VA]

4. I believe that was always the plan

We are simply leveling the curve, not eliminating the curve. Slowing the number of hospital patients to a manageable level so that they would have more successful outcomes. Not having to make choices of who gets the medical equipment needed for treatment and who does not.

Love your posts, Shermann!

[Drahthaardogs]

5. Yes. Herd immunity was always the plan

And still is. Just hopefully slow enough that things do not overwhelm the medical system.

[C_U_L8R]

6. That was my understanding too.

Vaccine or not.

[democrattotheend]

22. Exactly

My husband said it's actually better in the long term to have some natural herd immunity as opposed to just the synthetic immunity from a vaccine. Not 100% sure why but he knows a lot more about this than I do.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

23. I'm not sure what "long term" means, but we have pretty good "synthetic immunity" ...

... from measles, polio, etc.

I'll take a measles shot, polio shot, over some percentage of the population contracting these diseases.

[Girard442]

7. If the 1%ers could get it into their thick heads that they're as vulnerable as the rest of us...

...they'd realize that the "let the little people die" strategy is just as suicidal for them as it's homicidal for us. I don't think they get that.

[KentuckyWoman]

9. We have no scientific proof yet survivors build immunity ... yes?

Unless something changed... Last I heard even Fauci was saying we are still determining if that is the case.

[Igel]

10. Yes. That's what was said. Openly.

People may not remember it, but this was not intended to eradicate the virus.

Containment was a myth--as early data released late made clear.

That left suppression (close to containment, but focused on tamping down cases as they crop up, maybe eventually getting to zero) and herd-immunity. Both lasting until a vaccine comes along, if it ever does.

Part of the problem is abysmal messaging. Where I live we have a "stay-home/work-safe" order. As though the purpose was to keep us all well. It makes it personal and selfish, "stay home and avoid the nasty COVID". Around the edges was the moralizing, "We're really doing it for the older and sick people among us." Although seriously, most of the 30- and 40-somethings I know think they're the "older" people referred to.

"Stay-home/help-the-hospitals" would be better messaging. Because it's to keep the hospitals from exceeding capacity, which kills.

That's goal #1.

Goal #2 was trickier. Flatten the curve and you drag out the time till herd immunity. Drag that out enough and you run into when a vaccine might come along. That, too, would save lives.

But with the claim, sometimes not just implicit, that lockdown will keep you well and that's the real goal of the lockdown--your health--herd immunity sounds like they're backing off the real goal.

[Baclava]

16. The culling of the herd has begun and there is nothing anybody can do to stop it.

Nature will find a way to stop overpopulation, eventually

[uponit7771]

17. YES !!!

[uponit7771]

18. Plan D hyper testing with triggers

[Shermann]

24. New York has their R-Naught below 1 according to CNN today nt