What is "Heard Immunity"?

[LavCat]

In the US the government has the authority and the duty to balance individual freedoms against public health.  Possibly the primary example is Mary Mallon, more popularly known as Typhoid Mary.  She was an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid who did not believe in hand washing.  Her occupation was cook.  Mary changed jobs often.  Disease and death followed in her wake.  From her least 53 persons are believed to have contracted typhoid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

Mary was involuntarily quarantined in New York but released when she promised to stop working as a cook and to wash her hands.  But working as a cook is good money, and why wash your hands?

And then there were the regulations against spitting.  Does no one else remember "No Spitting" signs everywhere?  Devotees of chewing tobacco spread tuberculosis.  The government responded.  Spitters were arrested.  Before antibiotics tuberculosis was no fun.  The first husband of my guardian succumbed to the White Death.  I don't think he chewed or spit, but he was a milkman and tuberculosis is also spread to humans through milk from infected cows.  That is why most milk is pasteurized.

[Vandiablo]

So fuck everyone who gets up on a soap box and cannot discuss logic! YOU are part of the problem, not the solution!

Ya know, I feel the same way. So I'll throw in some logic. (Where can one find a good soapbox these days? Everything's cardboard.) Safety tip: Don't randomly swap bodily liquids during a pandemic (wait for it to finish.)

Why are some people so focused on death rate? Death is just one part of COVID's destruction. You shouldn't just be concerned with death, you should also be concerned with the low, slow painful recovery rate and the possibly life-long effects. But let's do death...

Yes, early on, there were issues that affected the measured mortality rate, and later there are factors that affect the actual mortality rate. Let's look logically.

Early on, doctors were putting most patients on ventilators because their O2 level was so low; it turns out ventilators are bad bad -- giving people oxygen masks was a better solution. Also, eventually doctors found that patients should lie on their stomachs, not backs. Later, real medicinal treatments came and improved things even more. 

Early on, tests were in very limited supply and so it was only the only the definite sick people who got tests. If you only test the portion of patients that are the most sick, your death rate is going to be skewed on the high side. We even had a major conservative influencer say we shouldn't do testing at all! What a maroon. (Orange maroon?) If you only do posthumous testing, you're going to figure a 100% mortality rate; would that be accurate? Trying to use logic here.

But that does not take away that the first few months the observed mortality rate was easily higher than 3%. It has come down with more accurate testing (testing all who might have it, rather than just those with symptoms), earlier detection and improved treatment (oxygen but no ventilator).

The national rate is also skewed for the following (logical) reason: people with higher risk are more likely to be careful about catching it in the first place. You can't just take the number of deaths and divide by the number of cases to get the virus's actual mortality rate -- you'll get overrepresentation of Sturgis bikers and an underrepresentation of hand-sanitizing aunties.

As for ships, sailors on some ships were given N95 masks and PPE, and almost everyone on a USN ship is under 40. Deaths are the domain mainly for the over-55. Nevertheless,there have been three fatalities in the USN ship outbreaks.

So, why so focused on the changing rate? Do you feel people are lying to you? Mistakes have been made, and some 2020 government officials spent a large amount of time wishing the problem away, but knowledge has been increasing and the "guidance" is more often "we know" lately rather than "we think". As long as they give the reasons and/or science at each step, it's all good. Does it matter whether the rate is 3% or 1.4%, we've had 600,000 people die in the U.S. (I don't mean to exclude the rest of the world here.)

Slippery slope about rights is laughable because there is so so so much resistance to directives. Texas gov has now banned mask mandates. I'd worry much more about slippery slope into nationalist fascism (Jan. 6th being the wake-up) than a government that cares about everyone's health.

As for the economic effects, I think the GOP Rep. quote shows it the best. He said, People should be willing to die to save the economy. (Or at least Grandma should.) No thanks, Mr. Grift R. Moneybags, I'm not dying for the sake of your bank account.

So, let's move on to quarantines and the oncoming benevolent evil. We'll use a bit of counter-logic mixed with sarcasm; sarcasm helps me to stay awake.

"So do you force everyone to stay indoors?" If everyone had stayed home for a few weeks in March 2020 it'd be over. Yeah, impossible, nobody can bear their family that long. Quarantine and isolation do not necessarily mean indoors. In fact outdoors is better for COVID; maybe not so much for other plagues.

"To get vaccinated if they want to fly, enter a government building, or go to school?" Yes, yes, and yes. I work in a government building; get the damn vaccine. Schools already require vaccinations. OMG, they started years ago!!!

"We set a precedence here and if you remove the word COVID from it, the very concept becomes alarming... A pandoras box was opened by giving our governments so much power to arbitrarily shut things down when they make the claim their citizens are threatened in some way, to enact new laws and restrictions on travel, where they can and can't enter" .. this has been true for centuries around the world and it's already true here, you've just not realized it.

"what they wear on their faces" ... and butts and genitals. (Now the rules went overboard with nipples but let's not get distracted. . . what were we talking about?)

"how close they can get to others" . . restraining orders.

"... even who they can talk to." what? what are you talking about? I have a feeling you don't mean people dying from COVID in hospitals.

"Never before in the history of this great country in the United States has the well and unaffected been forced to quarantine! This infringes upon so many of our rights, and is edging closer to a nation without freedoms," --- I never studied history very closely but I remember that George Washington went to Philadelphia and could not enter it because of yellow fever ((?)did I get it right?) People practiced social distancing by moving out into the country until it passed over. If someone sick came toward you, shoot him and run! Yellow fever is very very contagious and is a horrible way to die. Nevertheless, as pointed out in a recent post by LavCat, the U.S. has always had these abilities, to maintain the health of the populace. We just have not had to use them very often. Back in the 80's, the members of the Public Health Service were technically a military organization complete with ranks and uniforms -- this was set up for when a plague struck the U.S. and the PHS would be issuing orders. (I think at some point they stopped that, though.)

Okay I'm tired of writing, I have one more thing though. When you talk about how people "on both sides" (where have I heard that expression?) get all religious-y, I can speak for myself that I get tired of all the crap from the "other side" so I get very impatient. Crap? Yep, we could probably spend hours on how just one guy (you probably know Mr. Carlson) generates a whole mountain of crap every frickin weekday. It's not a both sides do it thing, his crap is easily debunked with about 8 seconds of research. And also our former White House guy, some research compared him with the current guy -- the number of untruths coming from the former was THIRTY times higher than the current guy. Furthermore, news sources that I trust will do corrections with apologies, and that's why I trust them. Meanwhile, I know several "news" sources that still won't retract the thing about Harris's book being given to migrant children, because they were about to find ONE copy that had been donated by its previous owner -- no no, they still want you to believe that Harris is getting the USG to buy her book or that the migrants are being indoctrinated (!) or some such bull. These outlets only backpedal when they are sued for a billion dollars (e.g., about lying about voting machines.) I admit to reading HuffPost, whom I cannot recall ever apologizing, but I think some of HuffPo is too "out there". (This pronoun thing annoys me; I think we should create genderless pronouns and use those, rather than remember different ones for every person.)

"Now that the narrative for vaccines is in place, I see more and more of our civil liberties slowly eroding away and if you do not see it, then you are blind!" ... I do need glasses, but did you deliberately not mention voting rights in your post? That's where there is danger.

Good night, and God bless the Lurker Lounge.

-V

[eppie]

"The obese deserve to suffer and die." (Usually not said explicitly, but the thought is there.

Vandiablo: The thought is not there. Nothing which you write here is something that comes to my mind. ...

The question: and I agree with team last post, is what does this cost us.
-liberty (loss of human rights)
...

Everyone can make his or her own choice. I do wear a mask, ...
...
I don't think it makes much sense to go on the way we do now just to create a society where we wear masks permanently, where we vaccinate for a series of diseases on a yearly basis and in the mean time blame other people and accuse them of not caring for the lives of other people.

(Pardon me for cherry-picking a few things and leaving the rest (and Taem's post) for later ... I have have to work tonight and also can't stay up late.)

okay, maybe "deserve to die" was too strong, and your point is different than the "they deserve it", but I'm picking up a "COVID is an obesity issue, not a general populace issue". I am feeling that this is just a nice facade for "we don't need to do anything, let them suffer". Sorry if that's not underlying your argument, but I have heard people say it. There is evidence that many people feel that fat people deserve harsher punishment if they have done something wrong -- that's science (or at least one study.) Experience tells me that there are definitely haters out there who relish fat people suffering. (I'm BMI 30.5, just over the line into obesity. I used to be bigger.) I don't have time to talk about obesity health so I'll just mention this article about the health benefits of being overweight or mildly obese; I haven't read it closely yet.

I agree it would be better to not have to wear masks indefinitely and get shots every year. But that is the best case scenario if we don't get eradication. And to get to eradication, if too many people will not get vaccinated, we have to wear masks. (That's all out the window now.)

As for "human rights"... Do you know that in our current society people are REQUIRED, when in public and other times, to COVER various ORIFICES. Get on a bus naked sometime, and you'll find out. (Have I ever...?) Some of it is "I don't want to see your ugly thing" but it is mainly a matter of public health. It is part of living in society, especially in densely-populated areas. So when there is a pandemic where asymptomatic people are spreaders, it is not unreasonable to require people in public to cover their filthy mouths. If people could just strictly do that for a while, then masks would no longer be necessary. But once we learned that masks work, the anti-maskers have complained (thanks, Don!) about their "rights" and then we had hundreds of thousands (U.S.) MORE people die. People who would not have died otherwise, people who did not "deserve" to die, people who had no fault of their own. (eppie, most of this not directed at you, thanks for wearing the mask)

And "and in the mean time blame other people and accuse them of not caring for the lives of other people." Chr!st! Not caring about other people is a huge, huge driver in masklessness and needless deaths. When people are killing other people, it's not just "blame" and "accusation" to call them out on it! It is the responsible thing to do! All this crap just because you don't want a cloth on your face is frickin' criminal. ("You" meaning a typical anti-masker, not eppie, who wears a mask.)

(Ugh, even cherry-picking didn't keep me from going too long. And do you know I actually dislike disagreements? Hard to tell.)

-----
(And as for my comment about Jester, I don't mean that he would say the dumbass stuff I do, I mean that he replies very well to posts I feel need an informative, reasonable counter-response -- I cannot remember ever disagreeing with him -- my replies have too much froth and only contain a mere outline of a reasonable argument with some steps missing. )  
-----

-V
Warning: Quotes out of context may be misleading and harmful to the public.

[Taem]

[...]

But that does not take away that the first few months the observed mortality rate was easily higher than 3%. It has come down with more accurate testing (testing all who might have it, rather than just those with symptoms), earlier detection and improved treatment (oxygen but no ventilator).

[...]

I want to say that I really appreciate what you wrote here (edit: not just on the part I quote, but the paragraphs above and below). It was witty, yet clear, concise, and factual. I do not have any rebuttal because I already said that based on own anecdotal observations of our employees, the death rate was around 1%, which jives with the US statistics. What I will say is that of the people who got diagnosed with COVID (not just "think" they had it, but actual confirmed diagnosis), all of them recovered without any issues and only one had long term problems with a golf-ball sized blood clot in her right lung, which dropped to a ping-pong size after three-months, but the doctors told her it might never go away. She was a rarity among all the people I know who had been diagnosed with COVID.

As for ships, sailors on some ships were given N95 masks and PPE, and almost everyone on a USN ship is under 40. Deaths are the domain mainly for the over-55. Nevertheless,there have been three fatalities in the USN ship outbreaks.

So, why so focused on the changing rate? Do you feel people are lying to you? Mistakes have been made, and some 2020 government officials spent a large amount of time wishing the problem away, but knowledge has been increasing and the "guidance" is more often "we know" lately rather than "we think". As long as they give the reasons and/or science at each step, it's all good. Doe's it matter whether the rate is 3% or 1.4%, we've had 600,000 people die in the U.S. (I don't mean to exclude the rest of the world here.)

Much evil is done through the act of good intentions. I never said anyone was intentionally lying to anyone, but I am neither blind to the atrocities that sticking to one narrative can cause without being open minded. My cautionary forewarning is just that, stating we need to keep our eyes focused on those who might take advantage of these new liberties to restrict our freedoms and not get so caught up in taking a side.

Slipperly slope about rights is laughable because there is so so so much resistance to directives. Texas gov has now banned mask mandates. I'd worry much more about slippery slope into nationalist fascism (Jan. 6th being the wake-up) than a government that cares about everyone's health.

[...]

From my observation as a restaurant operator in California, I can definitively state that governmental oversight played a significant role in the closing of several well known and established prominent businesses in Los Angeles, Ventura, and Santa Barbara counties resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yes, this created a vacuum and those of us lucky enough to have survived this hardship have seen a boon in activity since COVID restrictions have been lifted... but at the expense of hundreds/thousands of other businesses! That does not necessarily feel good to be walking over the bones of those you respected, especially when the CDC backpedals and say, "hey guys, we f-d up and it's actually OK to operate business outside because the rate of infection outside is near zero. We're so sorry we fucked you all by making you close down except for to-go's due to our ignorance that cost hundreds of thousands of people their jobs and closed famous restaurants. Actually, we're not sorry at all and don't really care." Yeah, I guess I'm a little jaded! Nearly a third of California's restaurants permanently closed as pandemic set in. I guess you don't live in my world, so get off your f'ng soapbox already... Or here's one from the nation, One in three U.S. workers changed or lost jobs in last year. This is what I'm talking about... There is no slippery slope here, this is reality, and it's fucking with peoples livelihoods here due to poor oversight! This is bad bureaucracy at it's finest, a prime example of how COVID restrictions can ruin peoples lives and how absolute power corrupts absolutely (I'm looking at you mf-er Gavin Newsom, giving a huge chunk of that PPP loan money to your personal businesses, crook)!

"To get vaccinated if they want to fly, enter a government building, or go to school?" Yes, yes, and yes. I work in a government building; get the damn vaccine. Schools already require vaccinations. OMG, they started years ago!!!

Move government "oversight", more corruption. That is what I see... The potential for abuse is ripe and the groundwork already laid out. On one extreme side, there are discrimination suits all the time for situations just like this - to be excluded for reason x-y-z; I see it fairly often in my line of work. On the other extreme side, this opens the possibility for a requirement for vaccine a-b-c before entering such-and-such a place in the name of protecting everyone. I do not get the influenza shot annually because each time I get it, the shot makes me so much sicker than the damn virus itself; one time I literally thought I was going to die (no joke) and asked my ex to draft up a will I spoke to her because I didn't have the energy to move. This requirement for COVID vaccines is a springboard to requiring vaccines for other viruses as well. That seems pretty obvious to me. I'd think you would be able to see the same thing...

"Never before in the history of this great country in the United States has the well and unaffected been forced to quarantine! This infringes upon so many of our rights, and is edging closer to a nation without freedoms," --- I never studied history very closely but I remember that George Washington went to Philadelphia and could not enter it because of yellow fever ((?)did I get it right?) People practiced social distancing by moving out into the country until it passed over. If someone sick came toward you, shoot him and run! Yellow fever is very very contagious and is a horrible way to die. Nevertheless, as pointed out in a recent post by LavCat, the U.S. has always had these abilities, to maintain the health of the populace. We just have not had to use them very often. Back in the 80's, the members of the Public Health Service were technically a military organization complete with ranks and uniforms -- this was set up for when a plague struck the U.S. and the PHS would be issuing orders. (I think at some point they stopped that, though.)

I do like what you and LavCat have brought up, and it does offer a different point of view re plagues and pandemics and how they have historically been handled in the US. In the case of Typhoid Mary, it makes sense that for the betterment of the community, Mary had to have legal action brought upon her due to her willful disregard for others. But those death rates... 25 infected and 2 dead in just one restaurant she cooked in! COVID has nothing over her, lol!

As a society, we now know what diseases are and how they spread. Is the onus not on the individual to keep themself safe as opposed to the world from keeping that individual from getting sick? This isn't the 1800's, and the CDC stated recently that COVID was less than 1% transmissible outdoors so, why put the onus on everyone else, especially if those people have gotten vaccinated already? By your logic, we should all be wearing masks year round in every possible situation because there are lots of transmissible diseases that put at-risk people in danger. You make a very poor straw-man argument versus overturning our personal liberties. And for the record, I still wear my mask in public here in California because we have a restriction until June 15th and I strongly believe in doing our part for our community and that means being part of your community, but I disagree with the methodology. Regardless of my disagreement, that does not mean I will not abide by the rules; I am a law abiding citizen and a part of my community, but I do have an opinion. Just because I did not agree with the COVID restrictions forcing our restaurants to do to-go's only, and yet I followed the restrictions. You fail to see what is being lost here in the name of protectionism, and your lack of ability to even comprehend what I've been alluding to shows you have already chosen a side and cannot logically discuss this. You are part of the problem. There has to be a line in the sand on how far our governments can go, how many lives can be destroyed in the name of good, and at what point the individual becomes responsible for themself instead of the world!

[LavCat]

This week's issue of The Economist has as its cover story a report on a new model of the COVID death toll.

[Taem]

Why Is There Such Reluctance to Discuss Natural Immunity?
an article by Jon Sanders - June 4, 2021 on behalf of the American Institute for Economic Research

If you’re among those of us who aren’t tribally invested in Covid politics but would like good information about when life will resume as normal, chances are you’re interested in herd immunity. You’re likely not interested in having to rely on the Internet Archive for good information on herd immunity. Alas, it’s become a go-to place for retrieving, as it were, previously published information on herd immunity that became inconvenient post-vaccine and then virtually Memory-Holed.
Over the past 15 months, the litany of Experts’ True Facts and Science regarding various aspects of SARS-CoV-2 has changed more often than the starting lineup of a bad minor league ball club. Covid-19 is spread by droplets, especially from asymptomatic people, until one day it was airborne all along and people who weren’t sick in all likelihood weren’t even sick. Stay at home, you’re safer indoors, even stay away from parks and beaches; well, actually, outdoors is the place to be. Masks don’t work against viruses and are actually unhealthy to wear if you’re not sick, then suddenly they did work and without one you might as well be shooting people. Everyone knows and PolitiFact verified that the virus couldn’t have been created in the prominent infectious disease lab doing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in bats coincidentally at Covid Ground Zero until, one day, PolitiFact had to retract the entire “Pants on Fire!” article. And so forth.
Unfortunately, information about herd immunity has also not been immune to this kind of meddling. Until recent months, people readily understood that active immunity came about either by natural immunity or vaccine-induced immunity. Natural immunity comes from battling and defeating an actual infection, then having your immune system primed for the rest of your life to fight it off if it ever shows up again. This immunity is achieved at a sometimes very high personal price. 
Vaccine-induced immunity is to prime your immune system with a weaker, non-threatening form of the invading infection, so that it’s ready to fight off the real thing should you ever encounter it, and without your having first to risk severe illness or death. 
Those interested in herd immunity in itself likely don’t have a moral or political preference for one form of immunity to the exclusion of the other. Immunity is immunity, regardless of whether a particular person has it naturally or by a vaccine. All immunity contributes to herd immunity.
Others, however, are much less circumspect. They seem to have forgotten the ultimate goal of the public campaign for people to receive vaccination against Covid-19. It’s not to be vaccinated; it’s to have immunity. People with natural immunity — i.e., people whose immune systems have faced Covid-19 and won — don’t need a vaccine.
They do, however, need to be considered in any good-faith discussion of herd immunity. There are two prongs to herd immunity, as we used to all know, and those with natural immunity are the prong that’s being ignored. It’s not just mere oversight, however. Fostering such ignorance can lead to several bad outcomes:

• People with natural immunity could be kept from employment, education, travel, normal commerce, and who knows what other things if they don’t submit to a vaccine they don’t need in order to fulfill a head count that confuses a means with the end
  
• The nation could already be at herd immunity while governors and health bureaucrats continue to exert extreme emergency powers, harming people’s liberties and livelihoods
  
• People already terrified of Covid — including especially those who’ve already had it — would continue to live in fear, avoiding human interaction and worrying beyond all reason
  
• People could come to distrust even sound advice from experts about important matters, as they witness and grow to expect how what “the experts” counsel diverges from what they know to be wise counsel while it conforms to and amplifies the temporary needs of the political class
  

Those of us wanting good information certainly don’t want any of those outcomes. But others seem perfectly fine to risk them. They include not only elected officials, members of the media, political talking heads, self-important bureaucrats, and their wide-eyed acolytes harassing shoppers, but strangely also highly prominent health organizations.
For example, late last year Jeffrey Tucker showed that the World Health Organization (WHO) suddenly, and “for reasons unknown,” changed its definition of “herd immunity.” Using screenshots from a cached version on the Internet Archive, Tucker showed how the WHO altered its definition in such a way as to erase completely the role of natural immunity. Before, the WHO rightly said it “happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.” The WHO’s change stated that it happens “if a threshold of vaccination is reached.” Not long after Tucker’s piece appeared, the WHO restored natural immunity to its definition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seemingly apropos of nothing, on May 19 issued a “safety communication” to warn that FDA-authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests “should not be used to evaluate immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time.” The FDA’s concern appears to be that taking an antibody test too soon after receiving a vaccination may fail to show vaccine-induced antibodies, but why preclude its use for “identifying people with an adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 from a recent or prior infection?” Especially after stating outright that “Antibody tests can play an important role in identifying individuals who may have been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and may have developed an adaptive immune response.”
Then there is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, that ubiquitous font of fatuous guidance. He had told people that herd immunity would be at 60 to 70 percent immunity, and then he started publicly cinching those numbers up: 75 percent, 80 percent, 85 percent, even 90 percent (as if Covid-19 were as infectious as measles). He is quoted in the New York Times admitting to doing so deliberately to affect people’s behavior:

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.“

Now — or better put, as of this writing — Fauci has taken to arguing herd immunity is a “mystical elusive number,” a distracting “endgame,” and therefore not worth considering. Only vaccinations are worth counting. As he put it recently, “We don’t want to get too hung up on reaching this endgame of herd immunity because every day that you put 2 million to 3 million vaccinations into people [it] makes society be more and more protected.”
While composing an article about natural immunity and herd immunity for my home state of North Carolina, I happened to notice that the Mayo Clinic had removed a compelling factoid about natural immunity. It’s something I had quoted in an earlier discussion of the matter and wanted to revisit it. 
Here’s what the Mayo Clinic once wanted people to know in its page on “Herd Immunity and COVID-19” with respect to natural immunity: “[T]hose who survived the 1918 flu (influenza) pandemic were later immune to infection with the H1N1 flu, a subtype of influenza A.” The Mayo Clinic pointed out that H1N1 was during the 2009-10 flu season, which would be 92 years later. That finding attested to just how powerful and long-lived natural immunity could be.

As can be seen from the Internet Archive, however, sometime after April 14 the Mayo Clinic removed that compelling historical aside:

The Mayo Clinic also reoriented its page to feature vaccination over “the natural infection method” (method?) and added a section on “the outlook for achieving herd immunity in the U.S.” This new section stated that “it’s not clear if or when the U.S. will achieve herd immunity” but encouraged people nonetheless that “the FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at protecting against severe illness requiring hospitalization and death … allowing people to better be able to live with the virus.”
Why, from people who know better, is there so much interest in downplaying or erasing natural immunity? 
Is it because it’s hard to quantify how many people have natural immunity? Is it out of a mix of good intentions and worry, that discussing natural immunity would somehow discourage (“nudge,” in Fauci’s term) people from getting vaccines who otherwise would? Is it simple oversight, being so focused on vaccinations that they just plain forgot about natural immunity? Or is something else at work?
Whatever the reason, it’s keeping Americans in the dark about how many people have active immunity from Covid-19. It’s keeping people needlessly fearful and suspicious of each other. It’s empowering executive overreach. Worst of all, it’s tempting people to consider government and business restrictions on the unvaccinated, regardless of their actual immunity.

While it does not necessarily add much new information, the article does highlight a far-reaching duplicity of those in power by eroding away our access to information and altering information. Is herd immunity really only 60%, as Fauci once stated before artificially "nudging" those statistics up? Are we already at that metric now? And what about the rights of those who have already have COVID? The article points out those people are slowly losing their rights due to this bureaucratic manipulation to retain a power our leaders should not have, something I have been espousing throughout this thread. Anyway, an interesting read.

[Vandiablo]

Okay, taking a break from studying Critical Race Theory...

"Immunity is immunity".
No.

"sometime after April 14 the Mayo Clinic removed that compelling historical aside".
Because it was very misleading.

"Why, from people who know better, is there so much interest in downplaying or erasing natural immunity?"
One, you shouldn't use "natural immunity" as part of future plans, because that means people have to suffer through it, people have to die. Two, you also should not count on those already infected as part of your plan because the level of immune response varies greatly from person to person; the previously infected cannot be counted on for very long to keep from spreading it. This was covered in Fauci vs. Paul. Three, the more you allow the virus to spread, the more it mutates; mutations are one of the potentially disastrous wildcards.

"Is herd immunity really only 60%, as Fauci once stated before artificially 'nudging' those statistics up?"
I don't think there is any such thing as a well-defined HI percentage, it would be something that is highly dependent on factors such as cultural behavior, season and climate, etc. Just like the death rate, it's not a hard-set number. And yet, I think it is not unreasonable to think that something with a R-whatever spread number between 1 and 2 could be defeated with 70% vaccination. If Fauci really said his initial number was definitely the magic number, then yeah, manipulative -- but whenever I've heard him, he will give caveats that provide context. However, the reporters will often strip away the caveats. I've not studied his latest quote about "elusive 'endgame'", but maybe he means what I just said -- there is no magic number, just keep vaccinating. When autumn arrives, cases and deaths will return in the low-vaccination areas, so we should try to get more vaccinated. [Edit note: I just looked at the MarketWatch article that was linked (Fauci changing numbers, and found that my paragraph here is paraphrasing points in their article. Anyone bothering to read this ought to read their entire article.]

"The article points out those people are slowly losing their rights due to this bureaucratic manipulation to retain a power our leaders should not have, something I have been espousing throughout this thread."
Anyway, as I've said, in a health crisis such as a pandemic or epidemic, leaders SHOULD and usually DO have these powers; I am even more convinced after this year seeing all the childish resistance based on various combinations of ignorance, politics, and misplaced machismo. I think the problem lies with: many local leaders are ill-prepared intellectually for this kind of situation; scientific guidance changes over time as more evidence happens, sometimes contradicting itself (masks, surfaces); a large proportion of the public can think critically, but can't do critical thinking (sorry, lame joke); some rules are arbitrary, somewhat arbitrary or seem arbitrary; oversight of leaders' emergency powers has been of the take-it-all-away variety instead of thoughtful review; many people are of the "looking out for number one" mindset when "we need to strive together" should rule the day; some people are blind or indifferent as to the fact that what they do affects (kills!) other people; too many people are 100% contrarian to the "other side"; assuming evil intent (as I do with think tanks and oil companies) of others; making lists that are too long; media outlets that idolize certain public figures; media outlets that demonize certain political figures; treating government employees as if they are political figures; plans of harm to public figures and their families; and, uh, et cetera. There are more. ... okay, breath 1, breath 2 ... so what power is it that is so coveted here? Why would any evil actor be happy with having people cover their faces during Spread Times? I'm not seeing how even a psychopath (sociopath?) would get any glee from all this stuff. Most of this stuff will disappear when the spread stops.

Some things will change on a permanent basis. We should realize the next one can come at any time. We should each have a good supply of bleach and hand sanitizer. We'll know to have a few billion little bottles; we'll know how to distribute hundreds of millions of bottles. We'll still have a stockpile of ventilators but we should not put the distribution into partisan hands. We now know that grocery stores are on the front lines. Restaurants will have plans ready to go for delivery and pick up. Ventilation of public places will likely change (I am guessing.) People know the difference between a N95 mask and a face covering.

There is one thing I agree with the article -- policy should not be based on how many vaccines were given, it should be getting to the point where the virus is no longer spreading. So, yeah, use a different metric than overall vax rate. BUT, if you're not there yet, then increasing the vax rate is the way to get there. Now, isn't that what Fauci is saying? 

As of this writing, my state has 46.9% vaccinated, and my county has 61.6% (18 and over) fully vaccinated. My county is now way, way down in daily cases -- averaging 7 cases per day in the last week, out a population of 1.1 million. Thanks, vaccine! Okay, wait a minute, we've had 7.0% of the population who have caught the virus and have not died. Is 61.6% enough on its own, or do we need to count up to 7.0% in our calculation for herd immunity? The thing is, it is unknown how much of the 7.0% we can use in our figuring. The article and Rand Paul say use all the 7.0%, Fauci et al say not so fast. I have a feeling we'll know these things soon.

---------------------------------

This really ought to be two posts, but I'm lazy... on to Part II...

I think "free-market think tanks" such as AIER are inherently evil. Here is what I found about AIER after 10 seconds of research (I have no idea who Desmog is) https://www.desmog.com/2020/10/26/americ...-covid-19/ :
---
"A Right-Wing Think Tank Is Behind the Controversial Great Barrington Declaration Calling for COVID-19 Herd Immunity" [excerpt]

Known as the Great Barrington Declaration, this statement advocating for herd immunity was introduced in early October at an event hosted by the American Institute for Economic Research, a conservative free-market think tank located in the western Massachusetts town of Great Barrington. This think tank, funded in part through a corporate investment firm with holdings in major oil and petrochemical companies, operates a network for the international business community that partners with other institutions backed by Koch and fossil fuel cash.

The herd immunity strategy, which the open letter describes as a “focused protection” approach, basically calls for allowing this highly infectious virus to spread throughout the population, in theory infecting enough individuals while somehow protecting the most vulnerable such as the elderly from getting sick in order to allow a resumption of daily life. Such a strategy would inevitably result in more deaths — by some estimates the American death toll would likely rise to between 1 million and 2.5 million — and is far from guaranteed from even reaching the intended goal of broad immunity.
---
There are two different herd immunities going on here; one by vaccination (Fauci, WHO, etc.) and the other by "Grandma should be proud to die to save the economy" (Koch, GOP, etc.)

(So, really, who is it in America that has too much power? What are their "think tanks" trying to accomplish? Who will benefit?)

Okay, back to CRT...

-V

[fresh_meat]

It is interesting that interest in this (COVID-19) seems to have mostly dropped off despite the death-cries from naysayers on both isles. Did Ukrane take its place, or perhaps Roe and women's rights? It is unfortunate that many countries used COVID as a means to both pass and enforce new rules and regulations to otherwise control people. I am not suggesting either is related, but as they say in politics, "never let a good tragedy go to waste".

Are your thoughts on COVID-19 still the same as they were exactly one year ago in 2021 Vandiablo?

[Vandiablo]

It is interesting that interest in this (COVID-19) seems to have mostly dropped off despite the death-cries from naysayers on both isles. Did Ukrane take its place, or perhaps Roe and women's rights? It is unfortunate that many countries used COVID as a means to both pass and enforce new rules and regulations to otherwise control people. I am not suggesting either is related, but as they say in politics, "never let a good tragedy go to waste".

Are your thoughts on COVID-19 still the same as they were exactly one year ago in 2021 Vandiablo?

*climbs out of grave*

By the fires of the Seven Hells, 
who dares interrupt my slumber!

Are your thoughts on COVID-19 still the same?

No. I am not one who holds my own thoughts in such high regard that I do not re-examine my beliefs periodically, especially after gaining a better understanding that comes from new evidence or better explanations. (I can provide examples, if you wish.) The important parts are to be able to tell when a change is warranted and why, and to be able to accept that your previous view needed modification, and thus you are not perfectly right about everything. IMO anyone incapable of changing their views should not be a scientist, teacher, manager, or elected official. (I am not advocating mindless "flip-flop", but rational people too often get that label.)

How have my feelings about COVID-19 changed in the past year? That would be a long post, not because of the (few) changes, but more because I have more evidence to back up what I was previously saying.

I find several things about your short post to be annoying or disturbing, though. I guess that is my nature.

"Both sides"???? Really? Again? "Feelings about COVID-19" is a complex multidimensional issue. "Both sides" is the cultural war, America's biggest hindrance during its struggle against the virus.

"Dropped off", "other things taking its place": Yes, there is a lot of stuff about Ukraine and the effects of the now-super-partisan Supreme Court. If you are so concerned about authoritarian control, you should be concerned about these. But just because these are in the news doesn't mean I have dropped, or been able to drop, my concern about COVID. As a great politician once said, "we can deal with multiple things at once." I still track cases per capita each day, for my county data, state data and U.S. data -- cases, hospitalizations, and yes (still!), deaths. I still wear a mask at stores and to my office's cafeteria and bathrooms. Please remember that the press, both the "MSM" and the more partisan, goes after "shiny"; Covid is no longer shiny.

As for "It is unfortunate that many countries used COVID as a means to both pass and enforce new rules and regulations to otherwise control people" -- are you one of the guys from Michigan who wanted to kidnap the governor? As I've said before, the danger to liberty is far greater from those who feel Jan 6th was justifiable (especially those holding government positions) than to those who are trying to prevent the death and suffering of inevitable biological threats. You are picking the wrong enemy and putting me in danger by doing so. My feelings on this have changed: they have intensified. And do you really need a primer on why rules are necessary for a free society?

Now, a curse upon thee, 
and upon *rolls die, checks table*  your next pizza delivery!  

*climbs back into grave*

-V
CEO of The Forsaken Inn

Note: terms of unspecified curse to be revealed at a later date.

Disclaimer: Quotes used out of context may cause public harm.

[fresh_meat]

Are your thoughts on COVID-19 still the same?

No. I am not one who holds my own thoughts in such high regard that I do not re-examine my beliefs periodically, especially after gaining a better understanding that comes from new evidence or better explanations. (I can provide examples, if you wish.) The important parts are to be able to tell when a change is warranted and why, and to be able to accept that your previous view needed modification, and thus you are not perfectly right about everything. IMO anyone incapable of changing their views should not be a scientist, teacher, manager, or elected official. (I am not advocating mindless "flip-flop", but rational people too often get that label.)

How have my feelings about COVID-19 changed in the past year? That would be a long post, not because of the (few) changes, but more because I have more evidence to back up what I was previously saying.

That was a long-winded way of saying nothing in particular while simultaneously tilting the narrative towards an unconscious sense of "guilt" to the reader for not being mature enough to "change". Bravo on the brainwashing; I bet this works marvelously with college students.

"Both sides"???? Really? Again? "Feelings about COVID-19" is a complex multidimensional issue. "Both sides" is the cultural war, America's biggest hindrance during its struggle against the virus.

Again with the obfuscation of the real issue, guised behind a smokescreen of "COVID is so complex... you simply cannot understand it all fully!" Reminds me of local pastors preaching about their religion on Sunday morning and when asked a question they don't know themselves, always revert to this same simplistic answer you just provided because it suits their needs without actually addressing that which they do not understand. "Both sides" is a very direct and obvious statement; I am not speaking about Red and Blue, but of those taking a hard-line stance that vaccinations are absolutely necessary for our survival against COVID, and of those diametrically opposed to COVID vaccinations, both for their own various reasons. For you to not be able to see these sides shows you are very clearly closed off to the opinions of half this world. Perhaps you work someplace where everyone is a "yes man" and you are not allowed deductive reasoning?

"Dropped off", "other things taking its place": Yes, there is a lot of stuff about Ukraine and the effects of the now-super-partisan Supreme Court. If you are so concerned about authoritarian control, you should be concerned about these. But just because these are in the news doesn't mean I have dropped, or been able to drop, my concern about COVID. As a great politician once said, "we can deal with multiple things at once." I still track cases per capita each day, for my county data, state data and U.S. data -- cases, hospitalizations, and yes (still!), deaths. I still wear a mask at stores and to my office's cafeteria and bathrooms. Please remember that the press, both the "MSM" and the more partisan, goes after "shiny"; Covid is no longer shiny.

Indeed, Monkey Pox comes to mind, as well as the shills who had Monkey Pox screaming on MSN and CNN to go get vaccinated against Monkey Pox now! Let me tell you an anecdotal experience of mine that is very personal... my grandfather was a very healthy 80-year old. Four months after receiving the COVID vaccine, he started getting dizzy and falling often and forgetting everything until one day, he gets a blood clot that gives him a stroke and he dies. There is quite a bit of "science" out there currently absolutely proving the COVID vaccine self replicates for a spell producing spike proteins in regular cells, and these spikes grab unto stuff in your body causing blood clots which can be clearly observed with a d-dimer test which where not there before. Here is another tidbit: my son and I are both double-jabbed with the Pfizer vaccine. COVID swept through my house and there a total of seven of us living here. Of the seven of us, only my son and I got severely sick with fevers above 104 for 5-days straight! Everyone else in my house who was NOT vaccinated showed symptoms less that 24-fucking hours and were over it completely! I would like your explanation how the COVID vaccination is doing anything whatsoever because quite literally, every single person I know, hundreds of employees and their families, have all had COVID and none of the vaccinated are any better off than the non-vaccinated. From my perspective, the COVID vaccine is not doing anything to stop the spread, or to alleviate symptoms whatsoever. All the data I've seen saying death rates have gone down since the vaccines introduction do NOT take into account all of the erroneous deaths the CDC reported (and admitted reporting) in the very beginning of the "pandemic" in an effort to track everyone that died with COVID in their body, regardless of how they died or what killed them.

As for "It is unfortunate that many countries used COVID as a means to both pass and enforce new rules and regulations to otherwise control people" -- are you one of the guys from Michigan who wanted to kidnap the governor? As I've said before, the danger to liberty is far greater from those who feel Jan 6th was justifiable (especially those holding government positions) than to those who are trying to prevent the death and suffering of inevitable biological threats. You are picking the wrong enemy and putting me in danger by doing so. My feelings on this have changed: they have intensified. And do you really need a primer on why rules are necessary for a free society?

Wow, another nice spin there. I never said anything about any of whatever the fuck you're going on about and I don't care about any of that shit either. I'm talking directly and unilaterally about the COVID vaccine. The changes to which I am referring were made under the pretense of a "pandemic" and under "emergency authority". These rules have not been recanted, such as new laws breaking our American 1st amendment rights on social media platforms, laws about gathering, laws violating our HIPPA rights requiring us to show a vaccine passport, etc, etc... Your straw-man attempt to paint me as some type of conspirator raises many flags about you and your agenda. I hope others who read this think deeply about your motives and the efficacy of the COVID vaccine. Let me ask you this, do you not believe in herd immunity (the topic)? Because the very definition of it was stricken from the CDC's website in lieu of some garbage about getting vaccinated.

[Vandiablo]

You asked. I gave a full answer. Wasted a good part of an evening, apparently. Oh well.

Most of what you bring up has already been beaten to death in this forum. The new issue was, given the reduced press about COVID, whether people like me still cared about it. I do. But your literal question was whether my thoughts were the same, and I said no. I said no because, even though I have not changed them much, it's been a year and there's been new developments, new variant waves, new treatments, and also time to reflect.

You may call that "saying nothing in particular" but that is the honest answer to your question.

Beside a slight curiosity about what my "agenda" is, I have no interest in wasting any more time reiterating stuff or dissecting the insults we have thrown at each other. If that is one of your victory conditions, go ahead and declare it. 

However, since removal of herd immunity definition from the CDC website has not been previously covered here (I think), and it was a direct question, I will respond to that. I am not surprised it was removed. As I have said previously, the idea that there is some identifiable percentage of population that would halt spread is, to me, not realistic. Basically there are too many variables that depend on culture and psychology and other nebulous factors (I am re-iterating). Basically you don't really know until it happens -- so get those vaccinations! Also there was the whole issue of whether "natural immunity" counts or not -- and my opinion on that has already been given here in some detail. (I am not re-iterating.)

-V