PlaneS

I was just going off Bloomberg’s vaccination tracker for Texas. I’ve seen numbers anywhere from 5 - 9% for the state.

Most doctors and scientists seem to agree that 70% vaccination level is around the minimum for some level of herd immunity, with higher numbers being more desirable of course (measles requires around 95%). The CDC can recommend this to the states but ultimately it’s on the individual governors to put a plan together. The CDC can’t really strong arm Greg Abbott into developing and following a plan, no matter how clear the science is.

PlaneS

South Dakota has no mask mandate or travel restrictions and they also had some of the worst death rates in the world. It’s important to not cherry pick data. It’s fantastic that death rates are down in MT, but that is by no means definitive proof that restrictions are bad. The distance and low population concentration might have something to do with it. I still don’t understand how masks and social distancing can be considered a bad thing?

Seneca Pilot

Masks and distancing are fine until they are forced on people who can assess their own risk tolerance and make informed decisions on how to best protect themselves and others.

I didn't cherry pick anything. I chose a state that had restrictions and recently ended them.

I wasn't attempting to make any case that restrictions are bad medically. The case that is being made by the statistics is that restrictions don't do anything medically but they sure destroy businesses and have a negative effect on children who miss out on education and socialization in school.

South Dakota is eighth in the country for deaths per million and there are seven states with worse death rates in the US. Of those seven, six are some of the most highly restricted states in the country. Maybe those forced restrictions aren't so effective after all.

FNGFO

Ok, you understand that none of the vaccines were tested for immunity? Studies for immunity and transmission are underway or planned, but each vaccine was developed and tested for symptom mitigation. In other words, they don’t know and have no proof that any of the vaccines will stop transmission or lead to immunity. And immunity is a moving target as no one really knows how long said immunity lasts with any vaccine let alone one that’s modifying your DNA. They will help keep an infected individual from developing severe symptoms.

Thats straight from the Dr. if Pharmacy that I sometimes cohabitate with.

The “science” is all over the place on this, and the “science” providers are less than clean with regard to political animus. When someone tells me about following the “science” I hear “I’m pretty laid back” and plan accordingly.

Florida is doing fine, and it’s as dense with a Covid susceptible population as anywhere. Montana is doing fine. Sweden is doing fine. On the other side of the scale some draconian lockdown places, Australia, for example, are also doing fine.

The real question is what leads to the least suffering. Not least Covid fatalities, but least total fatalities and suffering of the populace. We can do things to limit the former. But not without dire effects for the latter.

If you want to throw darts otherwise we can talk about how your locale isn’t prepared for once a century events, or highlight the dumba**ery of your elected parasite.

Texas will be fine.

BoilerUP

Did you notice that "most doctors and scientists" aren't acknowledging the role of infection-conferred immunity alongside vaccination, as the vaccination campaign continues to expand?

ICI doesn't "replace" vaccination outright, but it ABSOLUTELY does serve to force multiply the effects of vaccination early in that process.

https://www.latimes.com/science/stor...vid-19-vaccine

rickair7777

That's bureaucrat-speak for "we need to CYA before we commit to anything".

Just like most all of the other virus vaccines we have, the covid vaccines will almost certainly severely mitigate spread, symptomatic or otherwise.

We know natural immunity is good for about 9 months, but probably does fade away (variable between individuals) in some people. Vaccines tend to provide more consistent, longer duration immunity than naturally-acquired immunity. Everything seems to hint that the vaccines will hold up for one to several years, so 1-2 years is probably a safe SWAG for now.

The vaccines will severely mitigate spread, and worst-case, will also last at least long enough to logistically enable a practical booster schedule (like the flu). If you want to worry about something, worry about mutations, but even that can be handled by modified boosters. Worst case, it's like the flu shot.

Silver lining, as cases come down mutation opportunities come down as well. This will not be like the flu with a perpetual cycle of seasonal mutations.

PlaneS

That’s because “most doctors and scientists,” Fauci included, agree that ICI is a poor strategy for COVID in the long term:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30783-0/fulltext

The conclusion: “Reinfection cases tell us that we cannot rely on immunity acquired by natural infection to confer herd immunity; not only is this strategy lethal for many but also it is not effective. Herd immunity requires safe and effective vaccines and robust vaccination implementation.”

Regularguy

rickair

Isn't it amazing that for most of us not more than a year ago this idea wasn't even in our thoughts!

The COVID has changed everything and there is, not will be, a new normal. Politics, fear, virtuous individuals, racism, and much more were mostly a side show in our daily lives and now...

Regularguy

So your point is this, keep everything shut down until the world population is vaccinated? And how will we react to the next viral threat?

Fauci and others dream about this.

PlaneS

Masks and distancing are proven to be effective, and nobody - not you or me - can make a more informed decision on this issue than the guidance issued by the CDC. This is not new, and was known fairly early in this pandemic:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-news/newsroom/uc-davis-experts-science-says-wearing-masks-and-social-distancing-slow-covid-19/2020/07

You can assess your own risk to be very low, but even then - masks and social distancing are especially important for protecting the most vulnerable part of the population, many who have comorbidities, pre-existing conditions, etc. And people have been proven, time and time over, to make poor risk-assessment decisions. That’s why I think they should be mandatory. Here’s another good article about risk taking behavior during the pandemic.

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-your-brain-tricks-you-into-taking-risks-during-the-pandemic