Crazy (and not-so-crazy) shit about Covid-19

[Quigga]

Being a nurse for old people in Germany I would call myself a front line worker, yet I wasn't tested once... Nor have many of my peers...

[Trick]

. The most famous example from his own writings was probably his observation about the size of bird beaks on different islands. There was absolutely no argument that bigger OR smaller beaks were better. It depended on the types of nuts on a given island. The beaks that were more "fit" to the sizes and shapes of the local nuts were the ones favored by natural selection.

Why where birds even to be found on those islands ?

Couldn’t big beaked birds handle smaller nuts ? Did them small beaks migrate there to an specific fit for them environment(smaller nuts environment) or did they evolve isolated from some specific island swamp crawling creature that once upon a time had set eyes on the nuts and thought they looked delicious ?

[Trick]

Actually, that's what a vaccine does, aopt a "herd immunity" obtained by "natural selection." I was just trying to connect the Darwin stuff with our present pandemic.

That about the vaccines has been mentioned far back in the thread....that it’s a form of herd immunity(if it actually works)

But can herd immunity throu vaccination count as natural selection/survival of the fittest(that will say if now vaccines actually help one to be fit so to survive)..Maybe it can be counted as such,since we naturally(?) have the “strength” to think up and develope stuff, probably to compensate the lack of other strengths....

[Trick]

Being a nurse for old people in Germany I would call myself a front line worker, yet I wasn't tested once... Nor have many of my peers...

Why’s that ?

[Steve James]

The point of a vaccine has always been to obtain herd immunity. It's when a sufficient percentage of the herd population has had a mild form of the disease. It's not natural selection. In nature, an entire herd can be wiped out by a virus or an environmental change. There's no herd immunity.

The human advantage is the way our brains.... Oh never mind.

[Trick]

Then the surviving herds how did they manage an virus threat before herd immunity was invented(vaccine) ?

[Steve James]

Then the surviving herds how did they manage an virus threat before herd immunity was invented(vaccine) ?

That question doesn't make sense. But, humans have developed vaccines for our herds and domestic animals. Afa wild animals, that's Darwin. However, it's why we can't eradicate roaches with insecticides.

[Trick]

Then the surviving herds how did they manage an virus threat before herd immunity was invented(vaccine) ?

That question doesn't make sense. But, humans have developed vaccines for our herds and domestic animals. Afa wild animals, that's Darwin. However, it's why we can't eradicate roaches with insecticides.

yes, i couldnt really make sense of this

The point of a vaccine has always been to obtain herd immunity. It's when a sufficient percentage of the herd population has had a mild form of the disease. It's not natural selection. In nature, an entire herd can be wiped out by a virus or an environmental change. There's no herd immunity.

herd immunity can only be throu mass vaccination, is that what you mean ?

[Steve James]

Vaccines stimulate the body's immune system to produce antibodies as it would if you had been exposed to a virus/bacteria/pathogen. The antibodies (hopefully) give you an immunity to the full disease. If enough people in the population have been vaccinated, it can be said that there is "herd immunity" without the herd getting the disease.

Without a vaccine, the whole population may or will be exposed. If the pathogen is lethal, it will kill off much of the herd. However, a la Darwin, some of the herd will survive because they're naturally immune. They will mate and have offspring that are also "immune" to that pathogen. Nature selected them. Well, otoh, nature selected the pathogen too. After all, they're just trying to reproduce.

[windwalker]

The point of a vaccine has always been to obtain herd immunity. It's when a sufficient percentage of the herd population has had a mild form of the disease. It's not natural selection. In nature, an entire herd can be wiped out by a virus or an environmental change. There's no herd immunity.

The human advantage is the way our brains.... Oh never mind.

Herd immunity was recognized as a naturally occurring phenomenon in the 1930s when it was observed that after a significant number of children had become immune to measles, the number of new infections temporarily decreased, including among the unvaccinated.

[Steve James]

after a significant number of children had become immune to measles, the number of new infections temporarily decreased, including among the unvaccinated.

And, how did that "significant number of children" become immune? Through vaccination, right.

Then the new infections "temporarily decreased." Temporarily seems like a big qualification. But, my point was that "immunity" didn't mean that someone (unvaccinated) couldn't catch the disease if he was exposed. It's a mistake to think that if 30% (or 60%) of the population is vaccinated that the unvaccinated are immune.

The president, if he had the virus, now has antibodies that fight that virus. The idea of a vaccine is to provide a person with those same antibodies that people who get the disease have developed. That's why they've used antibodies in the blood plasma of people who've had the disease to treat patients.

[Bao]

If enough people in the population have been vaccinated, it can be said that there is "herd immunity" without the herd getting the disease. Without a vaccine, the whole population may or will be exposed. If the pathogen is lethal, it will kill off much of the herd. However, a la Darwin, some of the herd will survive because they're naturally immune

I don't like the concept of "herd immunity". It's darwinism alright. If you let the virus spread, it will kill off the most susceptible people. Here they speak about herd immunity, but in fact there is very little evidence of such thing. What they have done is letting a whole lot of elderly people die. The same thing in the US. If you measure the percentage Covid deaths in Sweden and the US according to population size, it's about exactly the same. And the solution in both of countries is the same: let it run around so old people die horrendously painful and traumatic deaths. Then you will start to see lower death rates. You could call it either Darwinism or cynical irresponsibility, the result is still the same.

[windwalker]

after a significant number of children had become immune to measles, the number of new infections temporarily decreased, including among the unvaccinated.

And, how did that "significant number of children" become immune? Through vaccination, right.

Is whats called "heard immunity " a natural phenomena

Obvious answer yes. with vaccinations speeding up a natural occurring process.

Herd immunity (also called herd effect, community immunity, population immunity, or social immunity) is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through vaccination or previous infections, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity. Immune individuals are unlikely to contribute to disease transmission, disrupting chains of infection, which stops or slows the spread of disease.

The greater the proportion of immune individuals in a community, the smaller the probability that non-immune individuals will come into contact with an infectious individual.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

https://gbdeclaration.org/

Along with those that are asymptomatic would suggest there is already a number of people who will not be or are not affected by this virus severely .
Strategies used combatting this virus are not the same as past viruses due in large part to many being asymptomatic.

A consensus is forming against lockdowns as being an effective means of mitigation

[Steve James]

I don't like the concept of "herd immunity".

I agree. Right now, the term is being used as a rationale to deny the need for lockdowns. It's not a strategy for reducing the number of serious illnesses. Yep, if enough people are exposed, they can talk about "herd immunity." But, without a vaccine, that just means many people will get sick, or die.

So, we don't really need a vaccine. All we need to do is expose everyone and Voila, we'll soon reach "herd immunity" meaning that the strong will survive. Great. Ya know, we don't even have to do that. All we have to do is nothing.

Those who believe in herd immunity should go out and get exposed. Ask to volunteer at a hospital. That's one way to become immune like 45.

[windwalker]

If enough people in the population have been vaccinated, it can be said that there is "herd immunity" without the herd getting the disease. Without a vaccine, the whole population may or will be exposed. If the pathogen is lethal, it will kill off much of the herd. However, a la Darwin, some of the herd will survive because they're naturally immune

I don't like the concept of "herd immunity". It's darwinism alright. If you let the virus spread, it will kill off the most susceptible people. Here they speak about herd immunity, but in fact there is very little evidence of such thing. What they have done is letting a whole lot of elderly people die. The same thing in the US. If you measure the percentage Covid deaths in Sweden and the US according to population size, it's about exactly the same. And the solution in both of countries is the same: let it run around so old people die horrendously painful and traumatic deaths. Then you will start to see lower death rates. You could call it either Darwinism or cynical irresponsibility, the result is still the same.

There is an argument from both sides concerning what strategies work or should be used.

Herd immunity is not something that one accepts or not.

Herd immunity, a term for something that will happen naturally or though intervention that speeds up the process.
The argument is one of how it's achieved. Are measures taken more detrimental in the long run for societies as a whole, over benefiting individuals short term
can both be achieved ?

Giesecke, a member of WHO’s Strategic and Technical Advisory Group for Infectious Hazards, is still advising a similar approach to governments elsewhere. On 23 September, he told an Irish parliamentary committee that Ireland should aim for “controlled spread” in people under age 60 and “tolerable spread” among those over age 60, though in a later interview he backed off, saying Ireland had to decide policies for itself.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10 ... e-backlash