Let's take a look at your "natural herd immunity" claims... Under 10% of the U.S. population has signs of anti-body immunity. A level of 70% is required to reach "herd immunity". We currently have 220,000 dead. Getting to "herd immunity" naturally will only require another 1,320,000 deaths. Fewer than 10% of Americans show signs of past coronavirus infection, study finds https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/26/les...f-past-coronavirus-infection-study-finds.html A large national study published Friday said that fewer than 1 in 10 Americans showed signs of a prior coronavirus infection as of late July. The finding is consistent with remarks made by CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield, who said that more than 90% of the country remains susceptible to the virus. That means the country likely remains far off from herd immunity. Fewer than 1 in 10 Americans showed signs of a prior coronavirus infection as of late July, suggesting that the “vast majority” of the population remains susceptible to the virus, according to a large national study published Friday in the Lancet. The researchers arrived at their findings by studying the prevalence of coronavirus antibodies, which the immune system typically generates in response to an infection, in a group of randomly selected dialysis patients across the country. Even people with coronavirus antibodies are not necessarily immune to the virus, as scientists are still trying to understand how much protection antibodies create and how long that protection might last. The finding that more than 90% of the country does not have antibodies is in line with conclusions of another study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has not yet been published, according to CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield. Taken together, the two findings indicate that despite the high level of spread of the coronavirus throughout the spring and summer, much of the U.S. has yet to be infected. That means the country likely remains far off from herd immunity, which is reached when enough of the population has developed protection against the virus so that it cannot spread efficiently. “If we’re measuring herd immunity by antibodies, then this study does not support that there is herd immunity,” said Shuchi Anand, a nephrologist at Stanford University who is the co-author of the new study. Anand and co-author Maria Montez-Rath, a biostatistician at Stanford, said the study also indicated to what degree the virus has disproportionately infected Black and Hispanic people in the U.S. The CDC has previously acknowledged the disproportionate burden of infection in racial and ethnic minorities. The new study found that people were more than twice as likely to have developed antibodies in Hispanic-majority communities than in mostly White communities and the rate was nearly four-fold in majority Black communities, Montez-Rath said. The researchers were composed of a team from Stanford University and Ascend Clinical laboratory, which processes lab tests for kidney dialysis patients. They examined blood plasma samples from a randomly selected group of about 28,500 patients across 1,300 centers in 46 states. The study found that about 8% of patients had developed coronavirus antibodies. Anand added that when adjusted for the general population, the study suggests about 9% of the public has antibodies.They noted that the prevalence of antibodies varied across regions of the country, with about 3.5% of patients in the West and more than 27% of patients in the Northeast showing signs of a prior infection. “It tracks with what we know about the virus, that it was very intense in the northeast and it’s sort of moving throughout the country now, but the the data is from July,” Anand said, adding that more people have likely been exposed in the South and West, in particular, since then. Eli Rosenberg, an epidemiologist at the State University of New York at Albany who was not part of the study, but has conducted similar antibody studies in New York, raised the question of whether the population of dialysis patients truly reflects that of the general population. “It’s a huge leap from dialysis to general adults,” he said, adding that because of their underlying condition they may be more susceptible to infection and that these patients might have not been able to stay at home to avoid infection. “If you’re going to a dialysis center rather than home dialysis, you don’t have the luxury of sheltering in March or April.” ‘How many more deaths?’ Regardless, he said, the study is in line with other findings that the U.S. remains far from herd immunity. “We’d have to experience a lot more illness and death to get to herd immunity and I think it should be morally unacceptable,” he said. “If it took 200,000 deaths to get to something sort of like this, I mean, how many more deaths? We’re talking a million or north of a million.” Most scientists say 60% to 80% of the population needs to be vaccinated or develop antibodies through natural infection to achieve herd immunity, top World Health Organization officials have previously said. Critics of business closures and public health restrictions meant to curb the spread of the virus have pointed to herd immunity without a vaccine as a potential solution to the pandemic. However, WHO officials and many epidemiologists have criticized the strategy because it would likely lead to widespread disease and death. The new study comes days after Redfield of the CDC told lawmakers that the majority of the country remains susceptible to the virus. “The preliminary results in the first round show that a majority of our nation, more than 90% of the population, remains susceptible,” he said Wednesday at a Senate hearing hosted by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. “A majority of Americans are still susceptible.” ‘Long way to go’ Dr. Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist was brought on relatively recently by President Donald Trump to advise the White House’s pandemic response, later challenged Redfield’s remarks. “It is not 90 percent of people that are susceptible to the infection,” Atlas said Wednesday at a White House press briefing. He argued that people with antibodies represent “a small fraction of the people that have immunity,” citing the theory that more people are protected against the coronavirus through T cells, a part of the immune system that defends against specific foreign pathogens. Some scientists have said people might have T-cell protection due to exposure to other coronaviruses such as the common cold, but Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci said such theories remain preliminary. Fauci said on Friday that it was “extraordinarily inappropriate” for Atlas to “contradict” Redfield. He added that Atlas “tends to cherry pick data” and that the research on so-called cross immunity is not yet conclusive. “You cannot assume that we are even anywhere near herd immunity right now in the United States,” Fauci said. “We have a long way to go to get to herd immunity.”
The Great Barrington Declaration has nothing to do with epidemiology and a great deal to do with far right economics https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog...-a-great-deal-to-do-with-far-right-economics/ As the BBC has reported today: Thousands of scientists and health experts have joined a global movement warning of "grave concerns" about Covid-19 lockdown policies. Nearly 6,000 experts, including dozens from the UK, say the approach is having a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society. They are calling for protection to be focused on the vulnerable, while healthy people get on with their lives. In other words, they want the young to do what they want; and the economy to reopen along with all schools and universities, without constraint, whilst the more elderly (the 60 plus) are effectively locked down and cut off from the rest of society for as long as Covid 19 lasts for their supposed self-protection. The so-called Great Barrington Declaration itself says: As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. It all seems such reasonable stuff. But then it adds this: As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. But that’s when the alarm bells ring. First, I am reliably informed there is no such term as ‘herd immunity’ in public health medicine. The term only exists in veterinary medicine. So this is not a medical, epidemiological or public health declaration in that case. Second, even if the term did exist, there is no evidence as yet that ‘herd immunity’ could be created for Covid-19. This is not a disease to which lasting immunity is created by having it once unlike, for example, mumps. Covid 19 seems like flu and the cold in this regard (which is unsurprising as the common cold is also a Covid), and herd immunity does not exist for either of them. In which case the claims made are based on an entirely false premise. Third, no policy of this sort has ever been used in society. I’d offer this clip of Prof Trisha Greenhalgh as evidence: As Prof Greenhalgh points out, this is in fact not science at all. To understand this it’s important to note that this so-called Great Barrington Declaration was signed at the Great Barrington Headquarters of the American Institute for Economic Research, of which Wikipedia says (and on this occasion, I think quite reliably): The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)[2] is a 501(c)(3) economic research institute located in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. The institute aims to promote individual sovereignty, limited government, and "a society based on property rights and open markets."[3] It was founded in 1933 by Edward C. Harwood, an economist and investment advisor, with the intention of protecting individual rights.[4] The current president of the institute is Edward Stringham, an Austrian School economist and a professor of economics at Trinity College in Connecticut.[5] This is not, then, epidemiology at all. Nor is it science. It is far-right economics. And the logic that underpins it is that of that branch of economic thinking. Over time I have formed the very firm opinion that many who adhere to that way of thinking are of the opinion that the elderly are simply a burden on society who do not add to economic production. If you look at how much the elderly do add to the production side of GDP this is, of course, a sustainable argument in a great many cases. It takes only a moment in that case to extend the argument and to argue that the elderly do, then, have no worth. And what this so-called epidemiological approach does is in that case provide is cover for what I think might best be called the cull of the elderly that many of this persuasion would, I think, like. This cull - which they call ‘harvesting’ (because that sounds so much nicer) - would achieve are four things. The first would be a reduced size of the state because of reduced pension payments. Second, there would also be a reduced size of the state because of reduced medical spending. And third, the logic is that taxes could Then be reduced as a result. And fourth, as a consequence, the income of the surviving younger people would increase. It’s easy to see why the right wing like this so much. But it’s still best described, in my opinion, as a cull. And, come to that, it’s also a deliberate policy to oppress the civil rights of the elderly. And all that is being done in the interests of supporting the free enterprise economy to operate without constraints because it is assumed that the elderly are pretty much outside it. So let’s stop the pretence that this has anything at all to do with health issues. This is the economics of neoliberalism running riot, and revealing in the process its utter indifference to the interests of anyone but those who can ‘add value’ within that system. As a result of which I add one final thought. If some can sign up to this what will they sign up to next? Remember, first they came for those they deemed to be the elderly..... You can fill in the blanks.
Coronavirus: 'Dr Johnny Bananas' and 'Dr Person Fakename' among medical signatories on herd immunity open letter Other listed supporters include Dr Harold Shipman and Dominic Cummings of "Durham Univercity". https://news.sky.com/story/coronvai...atories-on-herd-immunity-open-letter-12099947 A widely-circulated open letter calling on governments to pursue herd immunity is counting homeopaths, therapists and fake names among its "medical" signatories, leading to accusations that it falsely represents scientific support for the controversial position. The Great Barrington Declaration, a letter organised by prominent advocates of herd immunity, claims to have been signed by more than 15,000 scientists and medical practitioners, as well as more than 150,000 members of the general public. Yet Sky News found dozens of fake names on the list of medical signatories, which anyone can add to if they tick a box and enter a name. These included Dr. I.P. Freely, Dr. Person Fakename and Dr. Johnny Bananas, who listed himself as a "Dr of Hard Sums". One medical professional on the list gives his name as Dr Harold Shipman, a general practitioner in the United Kingdom. A GP called Harold Shipman killed more than 200 of his patients before he was arrested in 1998. Other famous names included Dominic Cummings, who is described as "PhD Durham Univercity". Sky News also found 18 self-declared homeopaths listed on the open letter as medical practitioners, despite the fact that homeopathy has no scientific underpinning or clinical evidence to support its use.
1. How many times do I have have to explain to you the studies and scientists have said that natural herd immunity may happen as low as 20 percent of the local population... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/health/coronavirus-herd-immunity.html ... "The initial calculations for the herd immunity threshold assumed that each community member had the same susceptibility to the virus and mixed randomly with everyone else in the community. “That doesn’t happen in real life,” said Dr. Saad Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health. “Herd immunity could vary from group to group, and subpopulation to subpopulation,” and even by postal codes, he said. For example, a neighborhood of older people may have little contact with others but succumb to the virus quickly when they encounter it, whereas teenagers may bequeath the virus to dozens of contacts and yet stay healthy themselves. The virus moves slowly in suburban and rural areas, where people live far apart, but zips through cities and households thick with people. Once such real-world variations in density and demographics are accounted for, the estimates for herd immunity fall. Some researchers even suggested the figure may be in the range of 10 to 20 percent, but they were in the minority. Assuming the virus ferrets out the most outgoing and most susceptible in the first wave, immunity following a wave of infection is distributed more efficiently than with a vaccination campaign that seeks to protect everyone, said Tom Britton, a mathematician at Stockholm University. His model puts the threshold for herd immunity at 43 percent — that is, the virus cannot hang on in a community after that percentage of residents has been infected and recovered. Still, that means many residents of the community will have been sickened or have died, a high price to pay for herd immunity. And experts like Dr. Hanage cautioned that even a community that may have reached herd immunity cannot afford to be complacent." 2. If 10 percent have antibodies then another 20 percent Could have T cell immunity. As long as we don't shut down again... we may get to natural herd immunity this winter.
We've already established that anyone can sign the declaration. I did, as I pointed out to you originally, as Jack The Ripper. Your continued posting of this fact highlights two things... 1. That which we already know, anyone can sign it 2. Your continued focus on slandering the declaration and those legitimate doctors that signed it without arguing against any of the points. Your intent is to silence. Not debate. That's fine, but be honest about your intellectual dishonesty.
They distract because they recognize the movement is gaining steam - not because of the signatories on the document but because the argument makes sense. But the detractors focus their energy on trying to discredit the movement based on things unrelated to the actual content - because they have no counter argument. All they have is ad hom. Its OK, but adults who consider both sides evenly see this - and that is why the movement continues to gain steam. If an excellent counter argument were presented, any rational adult would accept it. I would. But no, lets just make the movement to be the boogeyman. Bunch of dopes.
yes, let's off 4% of Americans to own the libs https://www.bbc.com/news/world-54518286 Coronavirus: WHO head calls herd immunity approach 'immoral' But WHO chief Tedros Ghebreyesus said such an approach was "scientifically and ethically problematic".
Someone like yourself who is enormously and hopelessly hyperpartisan will, of course, see this as an attack on the left and bring up a stupid comment like "own the libs". You will summarily ignore all the things the document is referring to, such as cancer treatments, vaccinations (forestalling them), the psychological impact of keeping kids from school, depression, opioid addiction, and on and on and on. To you, its just our team vs. their team. This is why you are always part of the problem and not the solution. Yeah, go ahead and click the post - we know you do.
Any "natural herd immunity" approach is eugenics - an approach designed to kill off the elderly and those at risk due to underlying conditions. A "natural herd immunity" approach is several steps beyond merely being immoral. The level of death of this approach when facing a novel global pandemic is unimaginable. It’s impossible to protect the vulnerable from a virus that’s rapidly spreading among the entire population, even if the risk of death or severe disease is much lower in the young. Attempts to sequester and lock-down the elderly has demonstrated that it is nearly impossible to keep COVID-19 out of nursing homes and other facilities when it is widespread in the local community. "The CDC estimates that nearly half of all Americans (47.5 percent) have underlying conditions that predispose them to severe Covid-19 outcomes. If it is a challenge to think of sequestering the elderly, what do we do with almost half of our fellow Americans who may be at similar enhanced risk of complications and death from Covid-19? " Let's look at some quotes from the head of WHO, Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesu... "Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it," he said. "Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic."
Now that Trump is telling his flock he's immune , they probably all think they're immune also. .. and they're still going on about Bengazi... CIA Whistleblower to provide evidence of major Obama admin treasonous scandal