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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @soncharm @Steve_Sailer and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @soncharm @Steve_Sailer and
Practically speaking I agree; this isn't going to zero because the entire west is made up of failed states incapable of doing simple testing and quarantining of the infected.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @Steve_Sailer and
Right. It’s not going to zero, unless of course we get a very good vaccine (which is not something that is reasonable to bank on). Which leaves us in the muddled middle of having to live with it. As long as it’s not growing, that’s good. Where does ‘herd immunity’ matter.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Which epidemics? Previous flu pandemics reached the levels of infection predicted by SIR. Measles reached that level in isolated populations without immunity from prior infections. There is no prior immunity from past infection for a novel disease so everyone is vulnerable.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @euneaux and
Feels like a good time to mention that research going around (dunno how much truth, can’t evaluate) suggesting perhaps other coronavirus exposures do provide some sort of partial immunity to this one
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Runs into the problem of Lombardi; maybe some % of people there *didn't* have COVID19 and had the protective infection first (which shows up on serum tests as COVID antibodies). All that means is that COVID is that much more deadly to those who do catch it.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @soncharm and
They can check old blood donations from 2019 to make sure they aren't getting false positive readings from pre-existing antibodies.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Steve_Sailer @soncharm and
Granting their assumption that some prior corona virus causes the body to produce the same antibodies as for COVID19 it still isn't good news; just means that the IFR goes from 1% to some higher number by lowering the denominator (I) while keeping the numerator constant (F).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 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.