HawkShack.com

Probably time to at least branch out from the general topic of coronavirus.

I had a debate with a friend of mine, one of the most intelligent guys I've ever had the pleasure of calling a friend, who suggested a concept known as herd immunity. Here's a copy and paste of his argument followed by my reply:

This plan for waging war against the coronavirus is based on the assumption that once you get the disease and recover, you are then immune.

So, instead of everyone huddling up alone at home to try to prevent the spread of the virus. We should encourage large groups of people to spread the virus as quickly and completely as possible. Most people will recover and be immune and the virus will have been stopped. Yes, some people will die. But this is war. Did you ever hear of a war where people didn’t die?

All we’re doing with the present approach is prolonging the issue while screwing up everyone’s life.

And my reply:

You should have titled your subject “Damn the Torpedoes! Full Speed Ahead!”

What you are talking about is herd immunity, and it’s based on the theory that once you get the disease and survive, your body builds up immunity. If enough people become immune, it is more difficult for the virus to spread from person-to-person as there are fewer hosts for the virus to latch onto. The virus dies on the vine.

There are a number of problems with this theory. First of all, experts claim that it would require 90-95% of the population to become immune to the virus in order for this strategy to work. This is a new virus, and no one has immunity. At a mortality rate of around 2%...a rate that is very conservative as it’s based on a nominal health care capacity….if that many people were infected, based on our population of 320 million, roughly 5-6 million people would die in the United States alone.

The second problem is that if you intentionally infect that many people all at the same time, it will easily overwhelm our health care system, driving up the death rate of not only those inflected with the coronavirus, but also place those patients in competition with others afflicted with various other ailments for limited bed space, ventilators, ICU rooms, etc.

Another problem with your proposal is that there is no assurance that the human body will build up the needed immunity. This is a new virus and it has not been studied sufficiently in order to make that kind of determination.

Additionally, there is the chance that this virus will mutate just as the flu does, in which case your herd immunity plan becomes a moot exercise as you would no longer be immune to the mutated virus when it re-appears the next season.

Both the British and the Dutch explored this option and it was almost unanimously rejected by the medical community. Here’s a good discussion on the topic:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 97871.html

Herd immunity is the reason the human race is still alive. You have to understand earning that herd immunity costs a lot of lives. How many? We don't know. You could do the herd immunity with every disease, but building it with something like Ebola would kill half the world or more before herd immunity kicked in. I doubt this corona virus would kill that many, but it would kill a lot more than social distancing combined with herd immunity. We're going to build herd immunity regardless of how fast we try to build it. If you survive the corona virus, then you will develop a certain level of immunity or resistance because your body fought it off. You will likely have a greater level immunity for future waves, but it could mutate.

The entire idea behind vaccines is herd immunity. Vaccines usually insert into your system a sample of the dead virus to get your immune system accustomed to killing it. This usually helps build up immunity or resistance to a virus like we do for the flu. Once we get vaccines for this corona virus, then we can treat it more like the flu.

Now I think we have more herd immunity than we think because this corona virus has been circulating for a while. They may even find that the current corona virus killing people is a mutation from a second wave. That is something only time will tell.

Suffice it to say that your friend is right that we will eventually build herd immunity. At the same time the cost of building herd immunity can be extremely high and that's what we're trying to slow down so hospitals can handle the severe cases as we build herd immunity.

The strategy at this point is not containment, it is slowing the spread down and allowing us to build herd immunity at a rate that will not overwhelm our hospitals. Herd immunity is just part of the process of survival and humans don't have to push it as a strategy for that happen. If your friend wants to get all the deaths over real quick and overwhelming our health system, then sure, take that strategy. I think this "flattening the curve" is a much smarter strategy to build herd immunity. The better health care we can give to more serious cases until recovery or at least lessening symptoms until they can free up ventilators and staff, the better we can handle this pandemic while we build that herd immunity.

Oh, I fully understand herd immunity and it very well may work in the case of the coronavirus. But we don't know, and the consequences could be disasterous if it doesn't work, and plunge the world into utter chaos while not having been effective at all. The only proven course of action is the one that we are currently embarking on, which is to practice social distancing, flatten the curve, and stretch out the rate of infection, buying time and give our medical community a chance to develop vaccines and treatments.

The medical community is near unanimous in their opinion of using a herd immunity strategy to combat the coronavirus.

Herd immunity strategies are fine for herd animals, terrible idea for people though.

c_hawkbob wrote:Herd immunity strategies are fine for herd animals, terrible idea for people though.

It depends on how dangerous and contagious it is. If the virus produces very mild, non fatal symptoms and isn't very contagious, then it may be better to just let it run its course and treat the symptoms rather than try to develop a vaccine for it.

But I understand and agree with the point you're making. Certainly in the case of COVID-19 it's a terrible idea. It's kinda like saying let's intentionally infect everyone with polio so we can develop herd immunity.

Herd immunity is inevitable or we die. It's not a thing that experts have to agree on. It's a scientifically proven evolutionary fact of species survival. The only argument is how fast you want to push the herd immunity, not if it is going to happen. That is the argument your friend is making. He wants to accelerate herd immunity overwhelming the medical system.

If we don't build herd immunity at some point, we are screwed. I don't see that happening with this corona virus. We are already building herd immunity against it at a steady pace that we are trying to slow, so more vulnerable people don't die as our hospital system helps them.

And watching youtube, boy do we have some smart doctors here. They have some really sound methods for treating COVID complications. Though apparently not as good as Germany who seems to be handling this very well.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Herd immunity is inevitable or we die. It's not a thing that experts have to agree on. It's a scientifically proven evolutionary fact of species survival. The only argument is how fast you want to push the herd immunity, not if it is going to happen. That is the argument your friend is making. He wants to accelerate herd immunity overwhelming the medical system.

If we don't build herd immunity at some point, we are screwed. I don't see that happening with this corona virus. We are already building herd immunity against it at a steady pace that we are trying to slow, so more vulnerable people don't die as our hospital system helps them.

And watching youtube, boy do we have some smart doctors here. They have some really sound methods for treating COVID complications. Though apparently not as good as Germany who seems to be handling this very well.

We have not built herd immunity against influenza otherwise we wouldn't have to be getting a flu shot every fall. Different strains keep mutating requiring a new flu vaccine be developed each season that targets the new strains. The exact same thing could turn out to be the case with the coronavirus. As a matter of fact, the coronavirus has already mutated into at least two strains.

RiverDog wrote:We have not built herd immunity against influenza otherwise we wouldn't have to be getting a flu shot every fall. Different strains keep mutating requiring a new flu vaccine be developed each season that targets the new strains. The exact same thing could turn out to be the case with the coronavirus. As a matter of fact, the coronavirus has already mutated into at least two strains.

I am not sure why you're debating a basic biological concept, but I'll try to explain it one more time.

The corona virus could mutate into 30 strains and if a certain portion of the population doesn't develop immunity, then we're done as a race. There was a time in the ancient past when we didn't have anything like modern medicine and the only way humans survived viruses and sicknesses was herd immunity. All we are doing with vaccines and modern medicine is lessening the cost in lives of developing that herd immunity.

Yes we have built herd immunity from the flu. You don't have to get the flu shot every year. It is recommended mostly for the old with weakened immune systems and the young with undeveloped immune systems or others with immune suppression. Herd immunity isn't some guarantee that you won't get sick. All herd immunity means is a certain percentage of the population will be immune or heavily resistant to a given sickness over time.

If we didn't have herd immunity from the flu, the death rate would skyrocket every year.

Herd immunity is not absolute. Anyone that tells you that is giving you false information. Herd immunity is a term used to indicate that the population as a whole is extremely resistant to a given virus indicating a very high survival rate in future epidemics.

But we most definitely have herd immunity against the flu and take steps to build it against any new strains, especially for vulnerable populations. Just as we have herd immunity against many other corona viruses.

[url]Community immunity: A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are offered some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community. Also known as herd immunity.[/url]

Herd immunity isn't 100%. I haven't gotten a flu shot in my adult life and I rarely get sick. Maybe once every few years. As I stated herd immunity is an evolutionary concept well known in biology and with any living species. It's an adaptive mechanism of all living creatures. If you don't develop immunity to a given virus, bacteria, or the like, then the species dies off. There will always in any population those that will still get sick, still die, and still suffer due to being particularly susceptible to a given sickness, disorder, or the like, but the species as a whole will develop a certain level of immunity among the living to ensure survival of the species.

I understand what herd immunity is, and I think I've laid out the reasons why it would be an unmitigated disaster if it were attempted as a strategy for combating the coronavirus. It's a brand new virus thus no one has an immunity to it, plus it is very contagious, meaning that it will require a very high percentage of the population to become infected with it in order for it not to transmit from one person to another. We simply cannot afford the huge increase in so many people getting severely ill all at the same time as it would result in a massive overloading of our health care system resulting in more overall deaths, plus as you stated yourself, we may not build up enough immunity to keep us from getting re-infected at a later date.

That's why scientists and health care professionals have overwhelmingly rejected the suggestion. The best strategy is to try to buy enough time to develop a vaccine, which is essentially does the same thing as herd immunity does naturally, it doesn't allow the virus to be transmitted and it dies on the vine. That's how they've been able to almost completely eliminate the polio virus, through an aggressive vaccination program. It also allows our medical system enough capacity to treat patients that fall ill and allow more time to develop treatments to increase survivability of those that are ill.

You're contradicting yourself when you say that Trump's 15 day social distancing timeline is insufficient yet you are advocating that we use herd immunity as a strategy to combat the coronavirus. If you think that herd immunity is such a great strategy, you should be arguing as my friend did and say that we should be encouraging people to congregate in large groups, ie Trump's packed churches, so as to infect as many people as rapidly as possible.

How would herd immunity apply to SARS, or worse, Ebola?

I think we got a glimpse of herd immunity with the 1918 flu. About 300 million people (1/5 of the world) were infected, and anywhere from 20-50 million died before it ended in summer 1919. What's not clear to me is why the whole world wasn't infected before it ended. Anyone know the answer?

I-5 wrote:How would herd immunity apply to SARS, or worse, Ebola?

I think we got a glimpse of herd immunity with the 1918 flu. About 300 million people (1/5 of the world) were infected, and anywhere from 20-50 million died before it ended in summer 1919. What's not clear to me is why the whole world wasn't infected before it ended. Anyone know the answer?

I haven't studied the 1918 flu, but it would seem logical that in the days prior to trans oceanic air transportation and robust auto travel that the world was more isolated than it is nowadays. Perhaps those factors played a role.

I-5 wrote:How would herd immunity apply to SARS, or worse, Ebola?

I think we got a glimpse of herd immunity with the 1918 flu. About 300 million people (1/5 of the world) were infected, and anywhere from 20-50 million died before it ended in summer 1919. What's not clear to me is why the whole world wasn't infected before it ended. Anyone know the answer?

For ebola it would probably cost us half the world. Ebola after an outbreak has an estimated mortality rate of 50% from what I read. If it mutated if allowed to spread, then it could get worse. If ebola started to spread, we would have to arrest the expansion like China or worse. We would have to seal an area off and kill anyone that tried to get out and spread it. It would be terrible.

RiverDog wrote:I understand what herd immunity is, and I think I've laid out the reasons why it would be an unmitigated disaster if it were attempted as a strategy for combating the coronavirus. It's a brand new virus thus no one has an immunity to it, plus it is very contagious, meaning that it will require a very high percentage of the population to become infected with it in order for it not to transmit from one person to another. We simply cannot afford the huge increase in so many people getting severely ill all at the same time as it would result in a massive overloading of our health care system resulting in more overall deaths, plus as you stated yourself, we may not build up enough immunity to keep us from getting re-infected at a later date.

That's why scientists and health care professionals have overwhelmingly rejected the suggestion. The best strategy is to try to buy enough time to develop a vaccine, which is essentially does the same thing as herd immunity does naturally, it doesn't allow the virus to be transmitted and it dies on the vine. That's how they've been able to almost completely eliminate the polio virus, through an aggressive vaccination program. It also allows our medical system enough capacity to treat patients that fall ill and allow more time to develop treatments to increase survivability of those that are ill.

You're contradicting yourself when you say that Trump's 15 day social distancing timeline is insufficient yet you are advocating that we use herd immunity as a strategy to combat the coronavirus. If you think that herd immunity is such a great strategy, you should be arguing as my friend did and say that we should be encouraging people to congregate in large groups, ie Trump's packed churches, so as to infect as many people as rapidly as possible.

Then we're in agreement. Unfettered herd immunity is a bad strategy that gives your medical system no time to catch up. We're not yet at the point where the economy is completely destroyed. We're at a delay point right now and can hold this point for probably two months with a fairly quick ramp up if everyone including businesses works together to delay loan payments with stimulus and a focus on keeping people with enough money to sustain. Even rents should be delayed and minimized and forgiven. If I were president I would pretty much tell everyone, every business to simply delay payments for a few months and keep everything as it is for two months so anyone affected by this can ramp up real quick once we can open the doors again. You will simply forgive the money and we will start at a reset point with some damages paid for until we ramp. My stimulus package would be focused providing money on businesses to pay workers number one.

RiverDog wrote:I haven't studied the 1918 flu, but it would seem logical that in the days prior to trans oceanic air transportation and robust auto travel that the world was more isolated than it is nowadays. Perhaps those factors played a role.

There are so many reasons that time was terrible. They were ending a world war. They did not have modern medicine. Most of the advanced nations were decimated by war in Europe and surroundings. You had a ton of wounded people being flown or shipped around the world and stuffed in hospitals and ships with young people recovering from war getting infected why their immune systems were compromised. You had no world level of coordinated communication and organization compared to now with most of the advanced nations decimated.

I am glad we don't have those circumstances now. Can you imagine living in a post-world war world and then getting hit with something like this? That would be terrible.