Here's how the Herd Immunity argument has progressed: Pro-HI: Sweden is 30% infected, halfway to Herd Immunity already! Me: Actually, Sweden is at 7% infected, 1/8th of way to HI. Pro-HI: Well .... Then HI must be at 15 or 20%! Me: 3 places in Italy got to 59-61%.
-
-
Replying to @Steve_Sailer @luigi_warren and
I think I would say I don’t care about ‘herd immunity’ per se, I care whether the epidemic is seeing explosive growth. If it’s not, who cares about these ODE solutions?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @soncharm @luigi_warren and
We are trying to figure out what we should do in the future. I keep pointing out that Sweden's strategy of promptly getting a majority of its citizens infected has failed _on its own terms_, single digit percentages of Swedes having allowed themselves to get infected.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Steve_Sailer @luigi_warren and
If we believe (I think we do) Sweden now has a higher I% than we do, they are now better positioned for that future, regardless of how close either of us is to a ‘herd immunity threshold’ drawn from a model that incorrectly describes dynamics.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @soncharm @luigi_warren and
Why do you believe Sweden is appreciably close to Herd Immunity other than that some Swedish officials were making claims to that effect last month? We now have data suggesting they were largely wrong. In reality, not many Swedes went out and got themselves infected.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Steve_Sailer @luigi_warren and
I didn’t say they were appreciably close to ‘herd immunity’, I have no idea. But remember, I don’t care about that per se (see above). I think this focus on achieving some predetermined (and supposedly pre-determinable) percentage is misplaced
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @soncharm @luigi_warren and
One big lesson out of Sweden is that the government policy means less than many assume: Swedish officials were optimistically talking about getting a majority infected, but individual Swedes, while mouthing support for the government, shied away.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Steve_Sailer @luigi_warren and
I don't know why that's anything earth-shattering. Look. At all times, in all places: Q: Does any given person wish to be infected? A: No Q: All else equal would we rather that more, or fewer people in the population have antibodies? A: More
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @soncharm @luigi_warren and
But it explains the hidden flaw in all the Let 'Er Rip theorizing: even if the government endorses broad spread and the public mouths support, enough individuals will still shy away from behavior more likely to get them infected to cause the strategy to flop.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Steve_Sailer @luigi_warren and
That's ok tho. The goal is (or should be) to keep an epidemic under control, not to get I+R to some weirdly-predetermined percentage. That's my whole point. If epidemic is controlled in part cuz people change behaviors to be more careful, that's fine. Why wouldn't it be fine?
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Because being a novel zoonotic infectious disease there is no "under control"; it's either going to zero or going to the herd immunity point and the current situation is unsustainable or at the least unpleasant enough that people won't sustain it willingly.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @Steve_Sailer and
what’s ‘the’ herd immunity point
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @soncharm @CovfefeAnon and
P.S. I have no confidence whatsoever that it’s ‘going to zero’, that that’s a realistic terminal boundary condition to include in grownup considerations and policy discussions
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.