Lock downs can never work, can not end an epidemic, and kill more by making it last longer

[OldLady]

The Salk vaccine as approved in 1955, but was not widely available for several years.

It took over 8 years to develop the Salk vaccine for polio, so clearly vaccines are not and never will be the means of ending an epidemic that already hit. What vaccines are good for, is preventing new ones in the future.

Thanks for the wiki article, but what I was looking for is some credible evidence that the polio epidemic had already been decimated by herd immunity. The graph shows cycles, with high and low years. Without the introduction of the vaccine, what makes you think it wouldn't have spiked again?

I'm not following the reasoning that it's a terrible idea to introduce a vaccine during an epidemic. You lost me.

 

[martybegan]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

About 150,000.
That is because if we had done herd immunity deliberately and effectively in March, then only 50,000 would have died instead of 200,000.
And it is never going to be over until we stop the lock down and go with accelerated herd immunity.
If we wait for a vaccine in a year, that will be another 400,000 deaths.

Where did you get the figure 50,000 deaths?

That is the usual estimate based on what we now know if an R0 around 2, and a lethality lower than flu.
The problem before is we were only testing those who has serious symptoms, so we did not know 90% of those infected were asymptomatic. Which means it was only a tenth as lethal as we had incorrectly assumed.
So you can figure herd immunity deaths would be similar to seasonal flu deaths, which also is ended by herd immunity.

I'd say it's worse than the flu, but not by an order of magnitude.

Flu deaths are also probably under-reported because if the person is weakened by the flu and then dies of something else, the flu probably isn't listed as a cause of death.

With COVID some people are reporting it as the primary cause even if it was only a contributing factor to an already very sick person.

 

[martybegan]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.

On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.

No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.

I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.

We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.

 

[AntonToo]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

About 150,000.
That is because if we had done herd immunity deliberately and effectively in March, then only 50,000 would have died instead of 200,000.
And it is never going to be over until we stop the lock down and go with accelerated herd immunity.
If we wait for a vaccine in a year, that will be another 400,000 deaths.

Where did you get the figure 50,000 deaths?

That is the usual estimate based on what we now know if an R0 around 2, and a lethality lower than flu.
The problem before is we were only testing those who has serious symptoms, so we did not know 90% of those infected were asymptomatic. Which means it was only a tenth as lethal as we had incorrectly assumed.
So you can figure herd immunity deaths would be similar to seasonal flu deaths, which also is ended by herd immunity.

I'd say it's worse than the flu, but not by an order of magnitude.

Flu deaths are also probably under-reported because if the person is weakened by the flu and then dies of something else, the flu probably isn't listed as a cause of death.

With COVID some people are reporting it as the primary cause even if it was only a contributing factor to an already very sick person.

Wrong. Flu deaths are not based on what is reported as the cause of death, they are estimates.

Covid-19 is considered about 5 times more lethal, leads to way more complications and is also more contagious.

 

[martybegan]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.

On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.

Auto deaths are up in MN. Pretty sure murder is up too

I actually read into this, and it seems while accidents can be down, they can be more lethal as open roads allow people to drive faster.

Interesting mechanic.

 

[Rigby5]

The Salk vaccine as approved in 1955, but was not widely available for several years.

The Salk vaccine as approved in 1955, but was not widely available for several years.

There was nothing to distribute in 1955.
Sure the disease was eliminated by the vaccine, but that was future epidemics.
This polio epidemic that started in 1948 was not ended by a vaccine.
Not that a vaccine changes the fact it is still herd immunity.
Vaccines are just a good way to implement herd immunity.

 

[martybegan]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

About 150,000.
That is because if we had done herd immunity deliberately and effectively in March, then only 50,000 would have died instead of 200,000.
And it is never going to be over until we stop the lock down and go with accelerated herd immunity.
If we wait for a vaccine in a year, that will be another 400,000 deaths.

Where did you get the figure 50,000 deaths?

That is the usual estimate based on what we now know if an R0 around 2, and a lethality lower than flu.
The problem before is we were only testing those who has serious symptoms, so we did not know 90% of those infected were asymptomatic. Which means it was only a tenth as lethal as we had incorrectly assumed.
So you can figure herd immunity deaths would be similar to seasonal flu deaths, which also is ended by herd immunity.

I'd say it's worse than the flu, but not by an order of magnitude.

Flu deaths are also probably under-reported because if the person is weakened by the flu and then dies of something else, the flu probably isn't listed as a cause of death.

With COVID some people are reporting it as the primary cause even if it was only a contributing factor to an already very sick person.

Wrong. Flu deaths are not based on reported, they are best estimates avaiable.

I would say the estimates are based on reported numbers, and extrapolated based on previous seasons and case studies of random people for flu antibodies as well as fatalities.

All things we are missing for COVID because we haven't had the time to do them yet.

 

[Rigby5]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Wrong.

“It’s a complete myth that you can just let the epidemic rage, protect the vulnerable, and achieve herd immunity. What may happen is…you fill the hospitals, you fill the morgues, and then the next year it happens again,” he says. “You’re not going to get enough people infected to achieve herd immunity and therefore you’ll have done it all for nothing.”

Herd immunity alone won’t stop COVID-19. Here’s why.

That link is obsolete and wrong. They are claiming you would need hundreds of thousands of death in order to achieve herd immunity and that is now known to be totally wrong for several reasons.
One is that we did not discover that 90% of those infected were asymptomatic until recently when we widened who was tested. What asymptomatic means is inherent immunity. (not to be confused with pre-symptomatic, who can still shed virus). And once you factor in 90% of the infected being asymptomatic and not previously recorded, then the death rate drops by a factor of 10.
The second is that since so many are asymptomatic, then most of the population has to already be inherently immune. That means instead of 65% of the population having to get infected and recover, you only need about 15% in addition to the 50% already inherently immune.

 

[AntonToo]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

About 150,000.
That is because if we had done herd immunity deliberately and effectively in March, then only 50,000 would have died instead of 200,000.
And it is never going to be over until we stop the lock down and go with accelerated herd immunity.
If we wait for a vaccine in a year, that will be another 400,000 deaths.

Where did you get the figure 50,000 deaths?

That is the usual estimate based on what we now know if an R0 around 2, and a lethality lower than flu.
The problem before is we were only testing those who has serious symptoms, so we did not know 90% of those infected were asymptomatic. Which means it was only a tenth as lethal as we had incorrectly assumed.
So you can figure herd immunity deaths would be similar to seasonal flu deaths, which also is ended by herd immunity.

I'd say it's worse than the flu, but not by an order of magnitude.

Flu deaths are also probably under-reported because if the person is weakened by the flu and then dies of something else, the flu probably isn't listed as a cause of death.

With COVID some people are reporting it as the primary cause even if it was only a contributing factor to an already very sick person.

Wrong. Flu deaths are not based on reported, they are best estimates avaiable.

I would say the estimates are based on reported numbers

Yes you would, and you did, but it's just not correct.

How CDC Estimates the Burden of Seasonal Influenza in the U.S. | CDC

Links to key resources on the burden of influenza - CDC

www.cdc.gov

We look at death certificates that have pneumonia or influenza causes (P&I), other respiratory and circulatory causes (R&C), or other non-respiratory, non-circulatory causes of death, because deaths related to influenza may not have influenza listed as a cause of death.

Your theory is that Covid-19 is comparatively overestimated because flu doesn't get listed sometimes as a contributing factor to deaths, but clearly methodology for Flu mortality estimates statistically accounts for that.

 

[Rigby5]

The Salk vaccine as approved in 1955, but was not widely available for several years.

It took over 8 years to develop the Salk vaccine for polio, so clearly vaccines are not and never will be the means of ending an epidemic that already hit. What vaccines are good for, is preventing new ones in the future.

Thanks for the wiki article, but what I was looking for is some credible evidence that the polio epidemic had already been decimated by herd immunity. The graph shows cycles, with high and low years. Without the introduction of the vaccine, what makes you think it wouldn't have spiked again?

I'm not following the reasoning that it's a terrible idea to introduce a vaccine during an epidemic. You lost me.

Vaccines are a great way to implement herd immunity, but they take too long.
There were a number of separate polio epidemics, not just one, and all the previous had been ended by herd immunity, so we know what the profile of a polio epidemic looks like, and it was essentially over by the vaccine distribution in 1957.

 

[martybegan]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

About 150,000.
That is because if we had done herd immunity deliberately and effectively in March, then only 50,000 would have died instead of 200,000.
And it is never going to be over until we stop the lock down and go with accelerated herd immunity.
If we wait for a vaccine in a year, that will be another 400,000 deaths.

Where did you get the figure 50,000 deaths?

That is the usual estimate based on what we now know if an R0 around 2, and a lethality lower than flu.
The problem before is we were only testing those who has serious symptoms, so we did not know 90% of those infected were asymptomatic. Which means it was only a tenth as lethal as we had incorrectly assumed.
So you can figure herd immunity deaths would be similar to seasonal flu deaths, which also is ended by herd immunity.

I'd say it's worse than the flu, but not by an order of magnitude.

Flu deaths are also probably under-reported because if the person is weakened by the flu and then dies of something else, the flu probably isn't listed as a cause of death.

With COVID some people are reporting it as the primary cause even if it was only a contributing factor to an already very sick person.

Wrong. Flu deaths are not based on reported, they are best estimates avaiable.

I would say the estimates are based on reported numbers

Yes you would, and you did, but it's just not correct.

How CDC Estimates the Burden of Seasonal Influenza in the U.S. | CDC

Links to key resources on the burden of influenza - CDC

www.cdc.gov

We look at death certificates that have pneumonia or influenza causes (P&I), other respiratory and circulatory causes (R&C), or other non-respiratory, non-circulatory causes of death, because deaths related to influenza may not have influenza listed as a cause of death.

Your theory is that Covid-19 is comparatively overestimated because flu doesn't get listed sometimes as a contributing factor, but clearly methodology for Flu mortality estimates statistically accounts for that.

and then they guess based on some factors.

With COVID the guess is being counted anytime a dead person tests positive, sometimes for being dead for something that would have killed them anyway.

 

[Rigby5]

The Salk vaccine as approved in 1955, but was not widely available for several years.

It took over 8 years to develop the Salk vaccine for polio, so clearly vaccines are not and never will be the means of ending an epidemic that already hit. What vaccines are good for, is preventing new ones in the future.

Thanks for the wiki article, but what I was looking for is some credible evidence that the polio epidemic had already been decimated by herd immunity. The graph shows cycles, with high and low years. Without the introduction of the vaccine, what makes you think it wouldn't have spiked again?

I'm not following the reasoning that it's a terrible idea to introduce a vaccine during an epidemic. You lost me.

The first polio epidemic in the US was in 1894.
Then 1916, 1921, and again in 1948.

The fact these earlier ones were wiped out without a vaccine, and only by herd immunity is the reason to assume it was not the vaccine that ended the 1948 epidemic either.

But there is nothing wrong with vaccines.
They are the safest way to achieve herd immunity.
But they normally take over 5 years, which is too long to wait.
And if we try to do it in 1 year, it make be more fatal than the virus itself.

 

[Rigby5]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.

On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.

No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.

I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.

We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.

A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.

Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.

 

[Staidhup]

I am not a doctor nor do I pretend as others to have all the answers, however, I agree isolation is a containment option which will only result in prolonging the viability of the contagion. Herd immunity on the other hand is a step forward in discovering a vaccine. The elephant in the room appears to be opportunity cost. At what point is the damage resulting from mandatory isolation and containment greater than the acceptance of herd immunity and possibility of developing a vaccine. People have the right and freedom to assume risk, therefore the consequences for their actions, regretfully the government is exercising its power to strip away the freedoms we take for granted. Once freedom is taken away it is gone forever and you become subjects of the dictatorial state.

 

[Rigby5]

Our freedom, jobs, businesses, homes, etc., were taken away by politicians who did not bother to research that herd immunity is what always ends all epidemics, and would have ended covid-19 in March if we have enhanced it with volunteers under 38, who would have virtually without any risk.

 

[ninja007]

ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.

Here are the experts.
Listen to them.

Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.

You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.

In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.

Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695

How many has the lockdown killed?

219,000 deaths? lol, try more like 2019.

 

[Turtlesoup]

The lock downs were only meant to last a month or 2.

There were 2 goals.
- Don't overwhelm the hospitals (flatten the curve)
- Buy time so we could invent some tools against the virus

Trump has been SCREAMING to open things up again!

Democrats are keeping things closed!

So OP is correct. A lock down does not stop the spread of a virus...it only slows its spread.

That is why humans have quarantined infected people and keep them isolated.

They quarantine the infected person----------------they don't quarantine everyone else.

 

[zaangalewa]

... ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic. ...

And because of this weird wrong idea you like to vaccinate people with an active, living - now fortunatelly not any more totally unknown - new virus? You don't have any idea what you speak about, isn't it? Because you are not able to wait and you do not like to fight against this virus you like to surrender and to produce a worst case scenario on your own artificially. To exxegerate stupidity and cowardice helps no one.

 

[zaangalewa]

... 219,000 deaths? lol, try more like 2019.

Intentional ignorance also help nothing. Why for heavens sake fight so many US-Americans for a deadly virus? If you would be a soldier in a war between nations, then it could happen that you would be shot down now from your own comrades because of collaboration with the enemy.

 

[forkup]

I am not a doctor nor do I pretend as others to have all the answers, however, I agree isolation is a containment option which will only result in prolonging the viability of the contagion. Herd immunity on the other hand is a step forward in discovering a vaccine. The elephant in the room appears to be opportunity cost. At what point is the damage resulting from mandatory isolation and containment greater than the acceptance of herd immunity and possibility of developing a vaccine. People have the right and freedom to assume risk, therefore the consequences for their actions, regretfully the government is exercising its power to strip away the freedoms we take for granted. Once freedom is taken away it is gone forever and you become subjects of the dictatorial state.

Question. What happens when you purposefully infect a nation of 320 million with a pathogen that has a mortality of 1 percent? I don't think the math is hard and I personally don't believe the result of that little math sum should be ignored in the name of freedom of choice.

Murdering someone is a usually a choice too. Pretty sure you don't mind the government punishing those making that choice.