Trump Covid adviser Scott Atlas pushes herd immunity

[sglowrider]

Trump Covid adviser Scott Atlas pushes herd immunity
White House team member wants to protect vulnerable while letting virus run its course

While Donald Trump is on the campaign trail, his administration’s coronavirus policy is increasingly being shaped by Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist who has been championing a new version of the controversial “herd immunity” strategy.

The US president appointed Dr Atlas to his coronavirus task force earlier this year, and his voice has become increasingly prominent in recent weeks as other members have been sidelined. Scientists are concerned that Dr Atlas’ renewed backing of a herd immunity strategy that protects the most vulnerable while allowing the virus to run its course among the rest of the population could undermine efforts to control an incipient “winter wave”. “Mostly, he has tried to suppress or alter information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has contributed to the loss of public confidence in the medical community,” said Barry Bloom, professor of public health at Harvard.

The White House declined to comment, while Dr Atlas did not respond to a request to do so. Coronavirus cases have been rising across the US in recent weeks, topping 50,000 a day for several days in a row for the first time since August. Scientists warn this could be the start of a “winter wave”, which will need to be contained with aggressive measures to contain the rise to prevent an exponential increase in infections.

Despite this, the White House is urging states not to impose lockdowns again. A senior administration official said earlier this week: “Lockdowns do not eliminate the virus; lockdowns are extremely harmful; and the best policy to save lives is to aggressively protect the vulnerable and open schools and society.” Officials say the most prominent voice in promoting this policy has been Dr Atlas. Unlike some others on the task force, Dr Atlas does not have a background in epidemiology, but he is known in rightwing policy circles as a former healthcare adviser to both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney during their failed presidential bids.

Mr Trump appointed him to the task force after a string of appearances on Fox News during which he argued combatively against lockdowns. Even if Mr Trump loses next month’s election, he and his advisers will remain in charge of the country's coronavirus response until at least January, when the presidential inauguration will take place. In recent weeks Dr Atlas has promoted a report known as the “Great Barrington Declaration”, which calls for a public strategy of “focused protection” of the vulnerable to build up herd immunity.

The report’s findings have been undermined by studies showing that far fewer Americans have built up an immunity to Covid-19 than would be required to achieve herd immunity, and by some signs that people can be reinfected. Martin Kulldorff, one of the report’s authors, told the Financial Times he had consulted Dr Atlas about the paper before its publication, and has since met both him and Alex Azar, the US health secretary, to talk about its conclusions.

“Dr Atlas is a very important voice in terms of basic public health proposals and a strong thinker,” said Mr Kulldorff. Dr Atlas’ intervention is the latest in a series of moves that have irritated other scientific advisers within the administration. He was one of the advisers who pushed for the CDC to change its guidance so that it no longer recommended people without symptoms be tested, even if they had been in contact with someone with the virus. Those guidelines were changed back soon afterwards following widespread criticism.

Last month, Dr Atlas publicly contradicted his fellow task force members Anthony Fauci and Robert Redfield, who had told Congress earlier in the day that 90 per cent of Americans still remained susceptible to the disease. That row erupted when Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was overheard on a flight saying: “Everything [Dr Atlas] says is false.”

Those close to the task force say the normally soft-spoken Dr Redfield has on occasion become irate at Dr Atlas, clashing particularly over the CDC testing guidance. Meanwhile, Dr Atlas’ colleagues at Stanford University have also voiced their alarm, with 78 of them signing an open letter saying: “Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities.”

As he has faced mounting criticism, Dr Atlas has pushed back aggressively. He has retweeted criticism of Dr Fauci, accused his critics of “instilling fear”, and his lawyer has threatened to sue the signatories of the Stanford letter. His allies say these political interventions belie a thoughtful scientist who is interested mainly in following evidence, even if others in his field disagree. “Scott Atlas does not argue, he simply presents the scientific evidence,” said Paul Peterson, who like Dr Atlas is a senior fellow at the rightwing think-tank Hoover Institution.

Sally Pipes, the chief executive of the Pacific Research Institute, worked alongside Dr Atlas as adviser to Mr Giuliani in 2007. She said he was primarily motivated at that time by a libertarian dislike of Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms. “We were very concerned we might move to a single-payer system, and we wanted to stop the government running healthcare like it does in Canada,” she said.

Both Dr Atlas’ friends and critics say his libertarian views have guided his response to coronavirus. But his critics warn those views have overridden the scientific evidence. “He is a political operative with no scientific background to make recommendations that affect millions of lives,” said Mr Bloom. “It is like asking a microbiologist to read brain scans and determine who has cancer.”

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication

www.ft.com

 

[sglowrider]

What people get wrong about herd immunity, explained by epidemiologists
There are two ways to reach herd immunity for Covid-19: the slow way, and the catastrophic way.

How will the Covid-19 pandemic end? And when?

These have been the biggest questions since the pandemic began earlier this year. The answer likely depends on one routinely misinterpreted concept in public health: herd immunity.

“Herd immunity is the only way we’re going to move to a post-pandemic world,” says Bill Hanage, an epidemiology researcher at Harvard. “The problem is, how do you get to it?”

Typically, the term herd immunity is thought of in the context of vaccination campaigns against contagious viruses like measles. The concept helps public health officials think through the math of how many people in a population need to be vaccinated to prevent outbreaks.

With Covid-19, since we don’t yet have a vaccine, the discussion has centered on herd immunity through natural infection, which comes with a terrible cost. Confusing matters, too, is the persistent and erroneous wishful thinking by some who say herd immunity has already been reached, will be reached sooner than scientists are saying, or can be reached without incurring horrible losses.

For instance, at a recent Senate hearing, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) claimed that New York City has its outbreak under control thanks to herd immunity and the fact that around 22 percent of the city’s residents had been infected.

But Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, who was a panelist at the hearing, immediately spoke up to correct the senator: “If you believe 22 percent is herd immunity, I believe you’re alone in that.”


The White House’s top advisers on the coronavirus also have meetings with doctors who advocate for allowing the virus to spread among young, healthy people, while attempting to protect older people and those most at-risk. It’s wishful thinking. Throughout the pandemic, the Trump administration has constantly been trying to downplay the seriousness of the virus. This is just the latest. Even President Trump, himself diagnosed with Covid-19, has continued to shrug off the virus’s seriousness. “Don’t let it dominate you,” Trump said in a video after returning to the White House following treatment at Walter Reed medical center. “Don’t be afraid of it.”

Hypothetically, yes, there are situations under which herd immunity to Covid-19 could be achieved through natural infection. But it comes with a price. Manaus, Brazil, an Amazonian city of around 2 million people, experienced one of the most severe Covid-19 outbreaks in the world. At the peak in the spring and early summer, the city’s hospitals were completely full, the New York Times reported.

During this period, there were four times as many deaths as normal for that point in the year. But then, over the summer, the outbreak sharply died down. Researchers now estimate between 44 percent and 66 percent of the city’s population was infected with the virus, which means it’s possible herd immunity has been achieved there. (This research has yet to be peer-reviewed.)

But that’s much higher than 22 percent, and the cost of this herd immunity was immense: Between 1 in 500 and 1 in 800 residents died there, the researchers estimate.

Many more were hospitalized, and still more may suffer long-term consequences of the infection. Similarly, the oft-cited example of Sweden, which has pursued a laxer social distancing strategy than its European peers (partially with the goal of building up herd immunity in younger people, while protecting older residents and trying to keep hospitals from exceeding capacity), has paid a price, too: a much higher death rate than fellow Scandinavian countries.

We’re several months into this pandemic, and herd immunity is still widely misunderstood and being continually misused for partisan goals of discrediting science and scientists. The biggest misconception is that achieving herd immunity through natural infection is a reasonable pandemic response strategy. It’s not. Let’s explain.

Herd immunity, explained, simply
There’s a simple explanation of herd immunity.

After a certain proportion of a population has become immune to a virus, an outbreak will stop growing exponentially. There may continue to be new cases, but each new case will be less likely to start a big chain of infections.

In this simple view, the herd immunity threshold — that specific proportion of the population with some immunity — is derived from a value called the R0 (r-naught). This is the figure that quantifies the average transmissibility of a disease. If the R0 is 2, that means that, on average, each case will lead to fewer than two new cases.

So the herd immunity threshold for a disease of this contagiousness is 50 percent. When half the population becomes immune, then, the outbreak may start to decline because the virus will not be able to spread as easily. For Covid-19, the exact figure for the threshold depends on whom you ask. Based on the simple math, “the expectation for the natural herd immunity level for Covid would be 60 to 75 percent,” Shweta Bansal, a Georgetown University epidemiologist, says. Though the figure could be a bit lower, perhaps 40 percent, in some places.

Regardless of the exact figure, as a country, the US is nowhere near reaching this threshold. In New York City, which experienced the worst coronavirus outbreak in the US, around 20 percent of residents got infected and 23,000-plus people died. Overall, a new Lancet study — which drew its data from a sample of dialysis patients — suggests that fewer than 10 percent of people nationwide have been exposed to the virus. That means we have a long, sick, and deadly way to go if the US is going to reach herd immunity through natural infection.

So far, there have been more than 200,000 deaths in the United States, with relatively few infections. There’s so much more potential for death if the virus spreads to true herd immunity levels. “The cost of herd immunity [through natural infection] is extraordinarily high,” Hanage says.

The herd immunity threshold for Covid-19 could be lower, or higher, than 60 percent. It depends on the makeup of a community, and its social dynamics.

So that’s the simple math of herd immunity — it’s a fraction derived from the R0 of the virus. Easy, right? In reality, how herd immunity through natural infection plays out in the real world is much messier, and very hard to precisely predict.

For one, this simple mathematical view of herd immunity assumes that risk of catching the disease in a population is evenly distributed. But we know that isn’t the case with Covid-19.

As we’ve seen, some people are more at risk of infection and severe illness or death because of their job, the environments they live and work in, the makeup of their immune system, socioeconomic factors like poverty, or their behavior: Some people may be willfully disregarding social distancing and mask-wearing mandates.

Knowing that the population doesn’t evenly share risk means the threshold for herd immunity can change based on who gets infected. Let’s say all the people most at risk of both catching and spreading the virus all get infected first. Then “the immunity within that group will have a particularly outsize benefit,” Hanage says. “Because they are the core group driving infection.”

So the overall threshold for herd immunity will be lower. How much lower?

Some hypothetical estimates put it as low as 20 percent, but “I think that is a stretch,” Bansal says. “Is [the herd immunity threshold] lower than 60 percent? Sure, that’s entirely possible. But I again, I think I don’t want any place on the planet to get to anything even close to that, right, in terms of infection rates.”

Hanage underscores a gross inequality here: Herd immunity achieved through natural infection would come at an undue cost to some of the most vulnerable, marginalized groups in the country.

“Because of the fact that some groups are more at risk of becoming infected than others — and they are predominantly people from racial [and] ethnic minorities and predominantly poor people with less good housing — we are effectively forcing those people to have a higher risk of infection and bear the brunt of the pandemic,” Hanage says.

The herd immunity threshold can be lower than estimated. But hypothetically, the threshold could be higher as well. It’s also the case that the herd immunity threshold can change over time. Remember the simple math of how herd immunity calculated: The threshold is dependent on the contagiousness of the virus.

Well, the contagiousness of the virus isn’t a fixed biological constant. It’s the result of the biology of the virus interacting with human biology, with our environments, with our society. As seasons change, as our behavior changes, so can the transmissibility of the virus. The herd immunity threshold is not one fixed target.

Herd immunity doesn’t end the pandemic. It just slows it down.
Once you hit the herd immunity threshold, it doesn’t mean the pandemic is over. After the threshold is reached, “all it means is that on average, each infection causes less than one ongoing infection,” Hanage says. “That’s of limited use if you’ve already got a million people infected.” If each infection causes, on average, 0.8 new infections, the epidemic will slow. But 0.8 isn’t zero. If a million people are infected at the time herd immunity is hit, per Hanage’s example, those already infected people may infect 800,000 more.

There are a lot of other unknowns here, too. One is the type of immunity conferred by natural infection. “Immunity” is a catchall term that means many different things. It could mean true protection from getting infected with the virus a second time. Or it could mean reinfections are possible but less severe. You could, potentially, get infected a second time, never feel sick at all (thanks to a quick immune response), and still pass on the virus to another person. “If immunity just reduces disease ... then [the] concept loses meaning,” Sarah Cobey, a computational biologist at the University of Chicago, writes in an email, noting, though, that this scenario is “unlikely.”

Overall, we don’t know if herd immunity through natural infection would look the same as herd immunity achieved through a vaccination campaign. “We don’t know yet if those two things will be different,” Christine Tedijanto, an epidemiology researcher at Harvard, says.

Even New York City could see another big wave
Right now, New York City appears to have its epidemic mostly under control, with fewer than 200 new cases a day, down from a springtime high of more than 5,000 cases per day. But the progress is precarious, with city health officials growing concerned about increasing clusters of cases in several of the city’s neighborhoods. Mayor Bill de Blasio said the city needs to take “urgent action” to prevent these clusters from growing.

It’s possible there are pockets of herd immunity in some New York communities, and, overall, it’s estimated around 20 percent of the city’s residents contracted the virus. Despite what Sen. Paul might think, New York has achieved some control through measures like social distancing and mask-wearing.

“As soon as they lift their foot off the brake, they will see that outbreak come back,” Bansal says. The reason New York has the epidemic under control is not because it’s achieved herd immunity; it’s because it's gotten its act together.

But even if there’s some degree of protection in New York from the natural infections that have occurred there, that protection will only last while mitigation measures are in place.

Another way to think about it: Through control measures, New York City has successfully, and artificially, reduced the transmissibility of the virus. That temporarily lowers the bar for the herd immunity threshold. But the city can’t resume life as it went on before the pandemic struck. That would increase the transmissibility of the virus, and the epidemic would grow there until reaching a higher herd immunity threshold.

Also, in New York, it’s important to remember that the level of immunity could vary widely from one community to the next. “Even if one borough has reached a herd immunity threshold, the boroughs around it may not have,” Tedijanto says.

Why you can’t infect the young to protect the old
Let’s say herd immunity is achieved through millions of younger people getting sick. White House adviser Scott Atlas (who is a neuroradiologist, not an epidemiologist) has suggested this is a good thing to do. “When younger, healthier people get infected, that’s a good thing,” he said in a July interview with a San Diego local news station. “The goal is not to eliminate all cases. That’s not rational, not necessary if we just protect the people who are going to have serious complications.”

Let’s be clear, it’s not a “good thing” when young people get sick. For one, some of these young people may die, more may get severely ill, and a not-yet-understood proportion of them could suffer long-term consequences. Remember: The more people infected, the more chances for rare, horrible things to happen.

These younger people, now immune, could, in theory, protect older populations more at risk of dying from Covid-19. But in building up herd immunity in this way, we’ve also built up powder kegs of vulnerability among the older people, which can be set off in the future.

“I think it’s impossible to think that you can have infections only among younger people, and not let them spread to other groups with populations that might be more vulnerable,“ Tedijanto says. People just don’t separately themselves so neatly into risk groups like that.

“We can try and insulate” older people, Hanage says. “We can do a very good job of insulating them. But the fact is, the larger the amount of infection outside them, the higher the chance that something’s going to get into them.”

Overall, here’s the biggest problem with thinking about herd immunity through natural infection: It’s impossible to predict which route it is going to go. “We don’t understand and measure our world in very deep ways yet,” Bansal says. We can’t predict the movements and behaviors, the risk factors, of millions of people, and how they change over time. Allowing herd immunity to develop through natural infection means letting the virus rip a hard-to-predict course through the population.

Herd immunity isn’t a dirty word. When a vaccine comes, it will be essential for scientists to devise a strategy to most effectively inoculate the country and end the pandemic. The price of achieving herd immunity through a vaccine campaign is the price of the vaccine, and the price of our patience waiting for it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

FFS. I can't believe people are still pushing this.

HERD IMMUNITY IS NOT A STRATEGY.

Herd immunity is simply a characteristic of a population when one of two things happen:

1. Enough people get vaccinated that the disease can no longer spread easily.
2. Enough people get sick and develop natural immunity that the disease can no longer spread easily.

There is no strategy here. If it's #1, great. Herd immunity is the entire point of vaccination. But if it's #2, it's not a strategy. It just means the disease has run it's course, and all the people who were going to die if we did nothing have died.

Might as well just call it the "Let's get it the f*ck over with already" strategy.

 

[sglowrider]

FFS. I can't believe people are still pushing this.

HERD IMMUNITY IS NOT A STRATEGY.

Herd immunity is simply a characteristic of a population when one of two things happen:

1. Enough people get vaccinated that the disease can no longer spread easily.
2. Enough people get sick and develop natural immunity that the disease can no longer spread easily.

There is no strategy here. If it's #1, great. Herd immunity is the entire point of vaccination. But if it's #2, it's not a strategy. It just means the disease has run it's course, and all the people who were going to die if we did nothing have died.

Plus you can add the complexity of re-infection to the whole calculus. This first-generation vaccine will be like the flu vaccines, it may not have a long life span or shelf life.

One critical success factor here has been to ensure that the healthcare system isn't stressed so that each individual patient can receive the best healthcare treatment possible. (S'pore has the population of Indiana, nearly 58,000 cases since January -- and 28 deaths to date -- one just died yesterday after being on 27 since June.)

With this Trump/Atlas approach, the healthcare system will be flooded and most probably crash which will lead to disproportionate mortality rate like in Italy in the early days.

Ultimately the best and cheapest solution both in terms of lives and financials is that you need to deprive the virus of oxygen in the room ie potential hosts. Simple and yet effective -- just requires understanding and motivation.

Hands. Face. Space.

 

[mainway_toys]

FFS. I can't believe people are still pushing this.

HERD IMMUNITY IS NOT A STRATEGY.

Herd immunity is simply a characteristic of a population when one of two things happen:

1. Enough people get vaccinated that the disease can no longer spread easily.
2. Enough people get sick and develop natural immunity that the disease can no longer spread easily.

There is no strategy here. If it's #1, great. Herd immunity is the entire point of vaccination. But if it's #2, it's not a strategy. It just means the disease has run it's course, and all the people who were going to die if we did nothing have died.

Might as well just call it the "Let's get it the f*ck over with already" strategy.

That doesn't matter. The point here is that it SOUNDS LIKE a strategy.

If you just stop looking at Covid as a public health crisis and think of it as a political problem for Trump, it'll all make sense.

 

[Stuffshot]

That doesn't matter. The point here is that it SOUNDS LIKE a strategy.

If you just stop looking at Covid as a public health crisis and think of it as a political problem for Trump, it'll all make sense.

I thought Trump revealed fear and weakness in this statement from his rally.



This statement clearly shows that Trump is aware of bad polling among women and also that he doesn't really know how to persuade them to like him.

 

[mainway_toys]

I thought Trump revealed fear and weakness in this statement from his rally.

View embedded media

This statement clearly shows that Trump is aware of bad polling among women and also that he doesn't really know how to persuade them to like him.

I could only tolerate 52 seconds of that. Reminds me of an observation I saw on Facebook: "It's as if we took everything that's bad about America, scraped it up off the floor, stuffed it in an old hot dog skin, and then taught it to make noises with its face."

 

[DrHoops]

FFS. I can't believe people are still pushing this.

HERD IMMUNITY IS NOT A STRATEGY.

Herd immunity is simply a characteristic of a population when one of two things happen:

1. Enough people get vaccinated that the disease can no longer spread easily.
2. Enough people get sick and develop natural immunity that the disease can no longer spread easily.

There is no strategy here. If it's #1, great. Herd immunity is the entire point of vaccination. But if it's #2, it's not a strategy. It just means the disease has run it's course, and all the people who were going to die if we did nothing have died.

Might as well just call it the "Let's get it the f*ck over with already" strategy.

What's baffling is Republicans want to "open things up" and that will just kick the can further down the road. It's so incredibly dumb. Free-dumb.

 

[IU_Hickory]

He can be my guest to get covid on purpose.

Not following him through that door.

 

[Stuffshot]

He can be my guest to get covid on purpose.

Not following him through that door.

Yes. The Republicans had better vote early, because this guy is going to infest them all and kill them one by one.

 

[Bloom.]

Trump Covid adviser Scott Atlas pushes herd immunity
White House team member wants to protect vulnerable while letting virus run its course

While Donald Trump is on the campaign trail, his administration’s coronavirus policy is increasingly being shaped by Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist who has been championing a new version of the controversial “herd immunity” strategy.

The US president appointed Dr Atlas to his coronavirus task force earlier this year, and his voice has become increasingly prominent in recent weeks as other members have been sidelined. Scientists are concerned that Dr Atlas’ renewed backing of a herd immunity strategy that protects the most vulnerable while allowing the virus to run its course among the rest of the population could undermine efforts to control an incipient “winter wave”. “Mostly, he has tried to suppress or alter information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has contributed to the loss of public confidence in the medical community,” said Barry Bloom, professor of public health at Harvard.

The White House declined to comment, while Dr Atlas did not respond to a request to do so. Coronavirus cases have been rising across the US in recent weeks, topping 50,000 a day for several days in a row for the first time since August. Scientists warn this could be the start of a “winter wave”, which will need to be contained with aggressive measures to contain the rise to prevent an exponential increase in infections.

Despite this, the White House is urging states not to impose lockdowns again. A senior administration official said earlier this week: “Lockdowns do not eliminate the virus; lockdowns are extremely harmful; and the best policy to save lives is to aggressively protect the vulnerable and open schools and society.” Officials say the most prominent voice in promoting this policy has been Dr Atlas. Unlike some others on the task force, Dr Atlas does not have a background in epidemiology, but he is known in rightwing policy circles as a former healthcare adviser to both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney during their failed presidential bids.

Mr Trump appointed him to the task force after a string of appearances on Fox News during which he argued combatively against lockdowns. Even if Mr Trump loses next month’s election, he and his advisers will remain in charge of the country's coronavirus response until at least January, when the presidential inauguration will take place. In recent weeks Dr Atlas has promoted a report known as the “Great Barrington Declaration”, which calls for a public strategy of “focused protection” of the vulnerable to build up herd immunity.

The report’s findings have been undermined by studies showing that far fewer Americans have built up an immunity to Covid-19 than would be required to achieve herd immunity, and by some signs that people can be reinfected. Martin Kulldorff, one of the report’s authors, told the Financial Times he had consulted Dr Atlas about the paper before its publication, and has since met both him and Alex Azar, the US health secretary, to talk about its conclusions.

“Dr Atlas is a very important voice in terms of basic public health proposals and a strong thinker,” said Mr Kulldorff. Dr Atlas’ intervention is the latest in a series of moves that have irritated other scientific advisers within the administration. He was one of the advisers who pushed for the CDC to change its guidance so that it no longer recommended people without symptoms be tested, even if they had been in contact with someone with the virus. Those guidelines were changed back soon afterwards following widespread criticism.

Last month, Dr Atlas publicly contradicted his fellow task force members Anthony Fauci and Robert Redfield, who had told Congress earlier in the day that 90 per cent of Americans still remained susceptible to the disease. That row erupted when Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was overheard on a flight saying: “Everything [Dr Atlas] says is false.”

Those close to the task force say the normally soft-spoken Dr Redfield has on occasion become irate at Dr Atlas, clashing particularly over the CDC testing guidance. Meanwhile, Dr Atlas’ colleagues at Stanford University have also voiced their alarm, with 78 of them signing an open letter saying: “Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities.”

As he has faced mounting criticism, Dr Atlas has pushed back aggressively. He has retweeted criticism of Dr Fauci, accused his critics of “instilling fear”, and his lawyer has threatened to sue the signatories of the Stanford letter. His allies say these political interventions belie a thoughtful scientist who is interested mainly in following evidence, even if others in his field disagree. “Scott Atlas does not argue, he simply presents the scientific evidence,” said Paul Peterson, who like Dr Atlas is a senior fellow at the rightwing think-tank Hoover Institution.

Sally Pipes, the chief executive of the Pacific Research Institute, worked alongside Dr Atlas as adviser to Mr Giuliani in 2007. She said he was primarily motivated at that time by a libertarian dislike of Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms. “We were very concerned we might move to a single-payer system, and we wanted to stop the government running healthcare like it does in Canada,” she said.

Both Dr Atlas’ friends and critics say his libertarian views have guided his response to coronavirus. But his critics warn those views have overridden the scientific evidence. “He is a political operative with no scientific background to make recommendations that affect millions of lives,” said Mr Bloom. “It is like asking a microbiologist to read brain scans and determine who has cancer.”

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication

www.ft.com

Can we start with Trump's 2020 voters?

I'll give them 2016. Trump promised a lot of pie in the sky ideas that never came to be, and Hillary had emails.

 

[cosmickid]

What people get wrong about herd immunity, explained by epidemiologists
There are two ways to reach herd immunity for Covid-19: the slow way, and the catastrophic way.

How will the Covid-19 pandemic end? And when?

These have been the biggest questions since the pandemic began earlier this year. The answer likely depends on one routinely misinterpreted concept in public health: herd immunity.

“Herd immunity is the only way we’re going to move to a post-pandemic world,” says Bill Hanage, an epidemiology researcher at Harvard. “The problem is, how do you get to it?”

Typically, the term herd immunity is thought of in the context of vaccination campaigns against contagious viruses like measles. The concept helps public health officials think through the math of how many people in a population need to be vaccinated to prevent outbreaks.

With Covid-19, since we don’t yet have a vaccine, the discussion has centered on herd immunity through natural infection, which comes with a terrible cost. Confusing matters, too, is the persistent and erroneous wishful thinking by some who say herd immunity has already been reached, will be reached sooner than scientists are saying, or can be reached without incurring horrible losses.

For instance, at a recent Senate hearing, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) claimed that New York City has its outbreak under control thanks to herd immunity and the fact that around 22 percent of the city’s residents had been infected.

But Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, who was a panelist at the hearing, immediately spoke up to correct the senator: “If you believe 22 percent is herd immunity, I believe you’re alone in that.”


The White House’s top advisers on the coronavirus also have meetings with doctors who advocate for allowing the virus to spread among young, healthy people, while attempting to protect older people and those most at-risk. It’s wishful thinking. Throughout the pandemic, the Trump administration has constantly been trying to downplay the seriousness of the virus. This is just the latest. Even President Trump, himself diagnosed with Covid-19, has continued to shrug off the virus’s seriousness. “Don’t let it dominate you,” Trump said in a video after returning to the White House following treatment at Walter Reed medical center. “Don’t be afraid of it.”

Hypothetically, yes, there are situations under which herd immunity to Covid-19 could be achieved through natural infection. But it comes with a price. Manaus, Brazil, an Amazonian city of around 2 million people, experienced one of the most severe Covid-19 outbreaks in the world. At the peak in the spring and early summer, the city’s hospitals were completely full, the New York Times reported.

During this period, there were four times as many deaths as normal for that point in the year. But then, over the summer, the outbreak sharply died down. Researchers now estimate between 44 percent and 66 percent of the city’s population was infected with the virus, which means it’s possible herd immunity has been achieved there. (This research has yet to be peer-reviewed.)

But that’s much higher than 22 percent, and the cost of this herd immunity was immense: Between 1 in 500 and 1 in 800 residents died there, the researchers estimate.

Many more were hospitalized, and still more may suffer long-term consequences of the infection. Similarly, the oft-cited example of Sweden, which has pursued a laxer social distancing strategy than its European peers (partially with the goal of building up herd immunity in younger people, while protecting older residents and trying to keep hospitals from exceeding capacity), has paid a price, too: a much higher death rate than fellow Scandinavian countries.

We’re several months into this pandemic, and herd immunity is still widely misunderstood and being continually misused for partisan goals of discrediting science and scientists. The biggest misconception is that achieving herd immunity through natural infection is a reasonable pandemic response strategy. It’s not. Let’s explain.

Herd immunity, explained, simply
There’s a simple explanation of herd immunity.

After a certain proportion of a population has become immune to a virus, an outbreak will stop growing exponentially. There may continue to be new cases, but each new case will be less likely to start a big chain of infections.

In this simple view, the herd immunity threshold — that specific proportion of the population with some immunity — is derived from a value called the R0 (r-naught). This is the figure that quantifies the average transmissibility of a disease. If the R0 is 2, that means that, on average, each case will lead to fewer than two new cases.

So the herd immunity threshold for a disease of this contagiousness is 50 percent. When half the population becomes immune, then, the outbreak may start to decline because the virus will not be able to spread as easily. For Covid-19, the exact figure for the threshold depends on whom you ask. Based on the simple math, “the expectation for the natural herd immunity level for Covid would be 60 to 75 percent,” Shweta Bansal, a Georgetown University epidemiologist, says. Though the figure could be a bit lower, perhaps 40 percent, in some places.

Regardless of the exact figure, as a country, the US is nowhere near reaching this threshold. In New York City, which experienced the worst coronavirus outbreak in the US, around 20 percent of residents got infected and 23,000-plus people died. Overall, a new Lancet study — which drew its data from a sample of dialysis patients — suggests that fewer than 10 percent of people nationwide have been exposed to the virus. That means we have a long, sick, and deadly way to go if the US is going to reach herd immunity through natural infection.

So far, there have been more than 200,000 deaths in the United States, with relatively few infections. There’s so much more potential for death if the virus spreads to true herd immunity levels. “The cost of herd immunity [through natural infection] is extraordinarily high,” Hanage says.

The herd immunity threshold for Covid-19 could be lower, or higher, than 60 percent. It depends on the makeup of a community, and its social dynamics.

So that’s the simple math of herd immunity — it’s a fraction derived from the R0 of the virus. Easy, right? In reality, how herd immunity through natural infection plays out in the real world is much messier, and very hard to precisely predict.

For one, this simple mathematical view of herd immunity assumes that risk of catching the disease in a population is evenly distributed. But we know that isn’t the case with Covid-19.

As we’ve seen, some people are more at risk of infection and severe illness or death because of their job, the environments they live and work in, the makeup of their immune system, socioeconomic factors like poverty, or their behavior: Some people may be willfully disregarding social distancing and mask-wearing mandates.

Knowing that the population doesn’t evenly share risk means the threshold for herd immunity can change based on who gets infected. Let’s say all the people most at risk of both catching and spreading the virus all get infected first. Then “the immunity within that group will have a particularly outsize benefit,” Hanage says. “Because they are the core group driving infection.”

So the overall threshold for herd immunity will be lower. How much lower?

Some hypothetical estimates put it as low as 20 percent, but “I think that is a stretch,” Bansal says. “Is [the herd immunity threshold] lower than 60 percent? Sure, that’s entirely possible. But I again, I think I don’t want any place on the planet to get to anything even close to that, right, in terms of infection rates.”

Hanage underscores a gross inequality here: Herd immunity achieved through natural infection would come at an undue cost to some of the most vulnerable, marginalized groups in the country.

“Because of the fact that some groups are more at risk of becoming infected than others — and they are predominantly people from racial [and] ethnic minorities and predominantly poor people with less good housing — we are effectively forcing those people to have a higher risk of infection and bear the brunt of the pandemic,” Hanage says.

The herd immunity threshold can be lower than estimated. But hypothetically, the threshold could be higher as well. It’s also the case that the herd immunity threshold can change over time. Remember the simple math of how herd immunity calculated: The threshold is dependent on the contagiousness of the virus.

Well, the contagiousness of the virus isn’t a fixed biological constant. It’s the result of the biology of the virus interacting with human biology, with our environments, with our society. As seasons change, as our behavior changes, so can the transmissibility of the virus. The herd immunity threshold is not one fixed target.

Herd immunity doesn’t end the pandemic. It just slows it down.
Once you hit the herd immunity threshold, it doesn’t mean the pandemic is over. After the threshold is reached, “all it means is that on average, each infection causes less than one ongoing infection,” Hanage says. “That’s of limited use if you’ve already got a million people infected.” If each infection causes, on average, 0.8 new infections, the epidemic will slow. But 0.8 isn’t zero. If a million people are infected at the time herd immunity is hit, per Hanage’s example, those already infected people may infect 800,000 more.

There are a lot of other unknowns here, too. One is the type of immunity conferred by natural infection. “Immunity” is a catchall term that means many different things. It could mean true protection from getting infected with the virus a second time. Or it could mean reinfections are possible but less severe. You could, potentially, get infected a second time, never feel sick at all (thanks to a quick immune response), and still pass on the virus to another person. “If immunity just reduces disease ... then [the] concept loses meaning,” Sarah Cobey, a computational biologist at the University of Chicago, writes in an email, noting, though, that this scenario is “unlikely.”

Overall, we don’t know if herd immunity through natural infection would look the same as herd immunity achieved through a vaccination campaign. “We don’t know yet if those two things will be different,” Christine Tedijanto, an epidemiology researcher at Harvard, says.

Even New York City could see another big wave
Right now, New York City appears to have its epidemic mostly under control, with fewer than 200 new cases a day, down from a springtime high of more than 5,000 cases per day. But the progress is precarious, with city health officials growing concerned about increasing clusters of cases in several of the city’s neighborhoods. Mayor Bill de Blasio said the city needs to take “urgent action” to prevent these clusters from growing.

It’s possible there are pockets of herd immunity in some New York communities, and, overall, it’s estimated around 20 percent of the city’s residents contracted the virus. Despite what Sen. Paul might think, New York has achieved some control through measures like social distancing and mask-wearing.

“As soon as they lift their foot off the brake, they will see that outbreak come back,” Bansal says. The reason New York has the epidemic under control is not because it’s achieved herd immunity; it’s because it's gotten its act together.

But even if there’s some degree of protection in New York from the natural infections that have occurred there, that protection will only last while mitigation measures are in place.

Another way to think about it: Through control measures, New York City has successfully, and artificially, reduced the transmissibility of the virus. That temporarily lowers the bar for the herd immunity threshold. But the city can’t resume life as it went on before the pandemic struck. That would increase the transmissibility of the virus, and the epidemic would grow there until reaching a higher herd immunity threshold.

Also, in New York, it’s important to remember that the level of immunity could vary widely from one community to the next. “Even if one borough has reached a herd immunity threshold, the boroughs around it may not have,” Tedijanto says.

Why you can’t infect the young to protect the old
Let’s say herd immunity is achieved through millions of younger people getting sick. White House adviser Scott Atlas (who is a neuroradiologist, not an epidemiologist) has suggested this is a good thing to do. “When younger, healthier people get infected, that’s a good thing,” he said in a July interview with a San Diego local news station. “The goal is not to eliminate all cases. That’s not rational, not necessary if we just protect the people who are going to have serious complications.”

Let’s be clear, it’s not a “good thing” when young people get sick. For one, some of these young people may die, more may get severely ill, and a not-yet-understood proportion of them could suffer long-term consequences. Remember: The more people infected, the more chances for rare, horrible things to happen.

These younger people, now immune, could, in theory, protect older populations more at risk of dying from Covid-19. But in building up herd immunity in this way, we’ve also built up powder kegs of vulnerability among the older people, which can be set off in the future.

“I think it’s impossible to think that you can have infections only among younger people, and not let them spread to other groups with populations that might be more vulnerable,“ Tedijanto says. People just don’t separately themselves so neatly into risk groups like that.

“We can try and insulate” older people, Hanage says. “We can do a very good job of insulating them. But the fact is, the larger the amount of infection outside them, the higher the chance that something’s going to get into them.”

Overall, here’s the biggest problem with thinking about herd immunity through natural infection: It’s impossible to predict which route it is going to go. “We don’t understand and measure our world in very deep ways yet,” Bansal says. We can’t predict the movements and behaviors, the risk factors, of millions of people, and how they change over time. Allowing herd immunity to develop through natural infection means letting the virus rip a hard-to-predict course through the population.

Herd immunity isn’t a dirty word. When a vaccine comes, it will be essential for scientists to devise a strategy to most effectively inoculate the country and end the pandemic. The price of achieving herd immunity through a vaccine campaign is the price of the vaccine, and the price of our patience waiting for it.

Another complication...

"An 89-year-old woman from the Netherlands died after she was infected with the novel coronavirus for a second time, according to a case report published by Oxford University Press. This marks the first recorded case of a reinfected patient dying due to the virus."

89-year-old Dutch woman dies after reinfected with coronavirus

The patient tested positive for coronavirus a second time, and antibody tests showed that she had no antibodies against the virus. Researchers said they were two different strains of the virus.

www.jpost.com

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Ending Covid-19 via herd immunity is 'a dangerous fallacy'

Prominent scientists sign open letter saying strategy is ‘unsupported by evidence’

www.theguardian.com

 

[sglowrider]

IGW's idea of isolating the vulnerable -- over 50s in his case was mentioned.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I saw a tidbit today, never has herd immunity come about without a vaccine. All those chicken pox parties, no herd immunity. So, without a vaccine, why do we think herd immunity would work?

IGW has ideas on how to sequester the 40% at risk. Since it involves paying people not to work, I cannot see any scenario Congress passes something like it. Not a single Republican would vote for it. No way a Democrat in West Virginia, or MT if Bullock wins, votes for paying people to stay home (nor vote to guarantee their old jobs at the end of herd immunity).

Since we cannot get herd immunity without vaccinations, and we have absolutely no way to protect the 40%, Scott Atlas is full of manure.

Now, that might change as therapeutic medicines appear or a vaccine appears. Or maybe we need to turn our teens into Coronavirus fighters and not getters https://www.dallasnews.com/news/edu...ning-her-a-25k-prize-and-national-recognition.

 

[SoccerSammy]

I saw a tidbit today, never has herd immunity come about without a vaccine. All those chicken pox parties, no herd immunity. So, without a vaccine, why do we think herd immunity would work?

IGW has ideas on how to sequester the 40% at risk. Since it involves paying people not to work, I cannot see any scenario Congress passes something like it. Not a single Republican would vote for it. No way a Democrat in West Virginia, or MT if Bullock wins, votes for paying people to stay home (nor vote to guarantee their old jobs at the end of herd immunity).

Since we cannot get herd immunity without vaccinations, and we have absolutely no way to protect the 40%, Scott Atlas is full of manure.

Now, that might change as therapeutic medicines appear or a vaccine appears. Or maybe we need to turn our teens into Coronavirus fighters and not getters https://www.dallasnews.com/news/edu...ning-her-a-25k-prize-and-national-recognition.

Guess what? Vaccine coming. Therefore herd immunity

 

[sglowrider]

CDC Report Finds Nearly 300,000 Excess Deaths During Pandemic
Although more deaths from all causes occured in older populations, the highest average percent increase in the number of fatalities relative to previous years was among adults aged 25-44 years.

Empty chairs representing the more than 200,000 lives lost to COVID-19 in the U.S. are displayed on near the Washington Monument, in Washington

NEARLY 300,000 MORE Americans died from late January to early October than expected during an average year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found in a report published Tuesday.
The majority of the excess deaths – 66% – are due to the coronavirus, the report found.

Examining the estimates "can provide a comprehensive account of mortality related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including deaths that are directly or indirectly attributable to COVID-19," the report said.

While it's not surprising that a pandemic that has killed more than 220,000 Americans would lead to higher-than-usual mortalities, the report did find an unexpected trend. Although more deaths from all causes occured in older populations, the highest average percent increase (26.5%) in the number of fatalities relative to previous years was among adults aged 25-44 years.

The report noted that COVID-19 deaths did become more prevalent among a younger population from May through August, but it said that the excess death increase for this age group "might also be related to underlying trends in other causes of death."

The CDC has sounded the alarm on addressing the spread of the coronavirus among young adults. Earlier this month it reported that increases in the positivity rates of people 24 and younger were followed by several weeks of increasing positivity rates in those aged 25 and older.

While younger people are less likely to die from COVID-19 than older populations, the percentage increase in excess deaths reinforces that it can still happen.

Tuesday's report also added to the body of scientific research that shows that minorities like African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately affected by the virus. The highest percentage jump in fatalities among ethnicities was Hispanic people at 53% more deaths in this time period relative to previous year averages.

"These disproportionate increases among certain racial and ethnic groups are consistent with noted disparities in COVID-19 mortality," the report said.

The report had several limitations, including the possibility that "estimates of excess deaths attributed to COVID-19 might underestimate the actual number directly attributable to COVID-19, because deaths from other causes might represent misclassified COVID-19–related deaths or deaths indirectly caused by the pandemic."

 

[SoccerSammy]

CDC Report Finds Nearly 300,000 Excess Deaths During Pandemic
Although more deaths from all causes occured in older populations, the highest average percent increase in the number of fatalities relative to previous years was among adults aged 25-44 years.

Empty chairs representing the more than 200,000 lives lost to COVID-19 in the U.S. are displayed on near the Washington Monument, in Washington

NEARLY 300,000 MORE Americans died from late January to early October than expected during an average year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found in a report published Tuesday.
The majority of the excess deaths – 66% – are due to the coronavirus, the report found.

Examining the estimates "can provide a comprehensive account of mortality related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including deaths that are directly or indirectly attributable to COVID-19," the report said.

While it's not surprising that a pandemic that has killed more than 220,000 Americans would lead to higher-than-usual mortalities, the report did find an unexpected trend. Although more deaths from all causes occured in older populations, the highest average percent increase (26.5%) in the number of fatalities relative to previous years was among adults aged 25-44 years.

The report noted that COVID-19 deaths did become more prevalent among a younger population from May through August, but it said that the excess death increase for this age group "might also be related to underlying trends in other causes of death."

The CDC has sounded the alarm on addressing the spread of the coronavirus among young adults. Earlier this month it reported that increases in the positivity rates of people 24 and younger were followed by several weeks of increasing positivity rates in those aged 25 and older.

While younger people are less likely to die from COVID-19 than older populations, the percentage increase in excess deaths reinforces that it can still happen.

Tuesday's report also added to the body of scientific research that shows that minorities like African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately affected by the virus. The highest percentage jump in fatalities among ethnicities was Hispanic people at 53% more deaths in this time period relative to previous year averages.

"These disproportionate increases among certain racial and ethnic groups are consistent with noted disparities in COVID-19 mortality," the report said.

The report had several limitations, including the possibility that "estimates of excess deaths attributed to COVID-19 might underestimate the actual number directly attributable to COVID-19, because deaths from other causes might represent misclassified COVID-19–related deaths or deaths indirectly caused by the pandemic."

Deaths with viruses, including COVID, have nothing to do with skin melanin.... It's about underlying conditions. Black Americans and Hispanic Americans have much higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.... Saying that dark skinned Americans are more affected by COVID is just another way to make everything center around race.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Guess what? Vaccine coming. Therefore herd immunity

Is there a vaccine here and now? So how does a vaccine in 90 days mean we should ignore COVID today?

While President Trump seems to have shaken off the virus, it appears his wife is still sick and cancelling campaign visits.

 

[Bill4411]

Scott Atlas (DVM) testing his coronavirus theory.

 

[SoccerSammy]

Is there a vaccine here and now? So how does a vaccine in 90 days mean we should ignore COVID today?

While President Trump seems to have shaken off the virus, it appears his wife is still sick and cancelling campaign visits.

Oh yes... the lingering cough that almost every virus that causes bronchitis gives.... We should definitely shut down the world for the lingering cough.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Deaths with viruses, including COVID, have nothing to do with skin melanin.... It's about underlying conditions. Black Americans and Hispanic Americans have much higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.... Saying that dark skinned Americans are more affected by COVID is just another way to make everything center around race.

Jesus. You get so triggered by race, that you lose your ability to understand English.

 

[HillzHoozier]

Deaths with viruses, including COVID, have nothing to do with skin melanin.... It's about underlying conditions. Black Americans and Hispanic Americans have much higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.... Saying that dark skinned Americans are more affected by COVID is just another way to make everything center around race.

It could be simpler than that. Darker skin tone affects a persons ability to absorb vitamin D from the the sun. There are strong correlations between a region's average per capita vitamin D levels and the severity of their outbreaks.

I agree that these stories are presented in the most racially-agitating way possible.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It could be simpler than that. Darker skin tone affects a persons ability to absorb vitamin D from the the sun. There are strong correlations between a region's average per capita vitamin D levels and the severity of their outbreaks.

I agree that these stories are presented in the most racially-agitating way possible.

There was nothing "agitating" about that article.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Oh yes... the lingering cough that almost every virus that causes bronchitis gives.... We should definitely shut down the world for the lingering cough.

Who is arguing for shutting down the world? It is Scott Atlas arguing against masks and social distancing. Two things easy enough even White 30-year-old Georgians could do if they wanted.

 

[mcmurtry66]

CDC Report Finds Nearly 300,000 Excess Deaths During Pandemic
Although more deaths from all causes occured in older populations, the highest average percent increase in the number of fatalities relative to previous years was among adults aged 25-44 years.

Empty chairs representing the more than 200,000 lives lost to COVID-19 in the U.S. are displayed on near the Washington Monument, in Washington

NEARLY 300,000 MORE Americans died from late January to early October than expected during an average year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found in a report published Tuesday.
The majority of the excess deaths – 66% – are due to the coronavirus, the report found.

Examining the estimates "can provide a comprehensive account of mortality related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including deaths that are directly or indirectly attributable to COVID-19," the report said.

While it's not surprising that a pandemic that has killed more than 220,000 Americans would lead to higher-than-usual mortalities, the report did find an unexpected trend. Although more deaths from all causes occured in older populations, the highest average percent increase (26.5%) in the number of fatalities relative to previous years was among adults aged 25-44 years.

The report noted that COVID-19 deaths did become more prevalent among a younger population from May through August, but it said that the excess death increase for this age group "might also be related to underlying trends in other causes of death."

The CDC has sounded the alarm on addressing the spread of the coronavirus among young adults. Earlier this month it reported that increases in the positivity rates of people 24 and younger were followed by several weeks of increasing positivity rates in those aged 25 and older.

While younger people are less likely to die from COVID-19 than older populations, the percentage increase in excess deaths reinforces that it can still happen.

Tuesday's report also added to the body of scientific research that shows that minorities like African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately affected by the virus. The highest percentage jump in fatalities among ethnicities was Hispanic people at 53% more deaths in this time period relative to previous year averages.

"These disproportionate increases among certain racial and ethnic groups are consistent with noted disparities in COVID-19 mortality," the report said.

The report had several limitations, including the possibility that "estimates of excess deaths attributed to COVID-19 might underestimate the actual number directly attributable to COVID-19, because deaths from other causes might represent misclassified COVID-19–related deaths or deaths indirectly caused by the pandemic."

read an article yesterday that 8 million plus in the US have fallen into poverty since may. hard to quantify the magnitude the pandemic has had on the world, but viewing this issue solely within the spectrum of science and covid consequences related to same is a mistake in my view. covid deaths/hospitalizations/ir and the scientists views on same should not be dispositive in making policy decisions, but a factor. igw, while often maligned and no offense to him often providing impractical suggestions, is at least proffering ideas. if a vaccine is in the offing great; but if it falls through i hope biden and his team begin figuring out ways to isolate certain populations and remunerate same because lockdowns are no longer a viable answer. the consequences to lockdowns are too great

 

[mcmurtry66]

What's baffling is Republicans want to "open things up" and that will just kick the can further down the road. It's so incredibly dumb. Free-dumb.

can't have more lockdowns. covid is only one health crisis side of the ledger. over 8 million people have fallen into poverty since may. the consequences of that are catastrophic. there are kids who have to go to public places to get wifi for online school because their parents can't afford the internet at home. time to figure a way to isolate those at risk and remunerate same if vaccines aren't in the offing. the ultimate kicking the can is periodic lockdowns. we know now just how minute the bad results are for people under 70. time to think and figure out ways to isolate those at risk. there comes a time when the selfishness becomes on the part of those at risk as they are by far the minority. and it sounds ignorant to say that but it again is becoming an issue

 

[ButHerEmails]

Who is arguing for shutting down the world? It is Scott Atlas arguing against masks and social distancing. Two things easy enough even White 30-year-old Georgians could do if they wanted.

I can tell you this, when I have questions about global pandemics, epidemiology and virology I run straight to the nearest radiologist who hasn’t practiced in almost a decade.

 

[hoosboot]

can't have more lockdowns. covid is only one health crisis side of the ledger. over 8 million people have fallen into poverty since may. the consequences of that are catastrophic. there are kids who have to go to public places to get wifi for online school because their parents can't afford the internet at home. time to figure a way to isolate those at risk and remunerate same if vaccines aren't in the offing. the ultimate kicking the can is periodic lockdowns. we know now just how minute the bad results are for people under 70. time to think and figure out ways to isolate those at risk. there comes a time when the selfishness becomes on the part of those at risk as they are by far the minority. and it sounds ignorant to say that but it again is becoming an issue

Where are kids having to go to public places to get wifi for online school? I've seen huge programs all over the country where school districts partner with telecoms to make sure kids have access to the internet. I'd be interested to know because those school districts can be directed to those programs.

In terms of lockdowns - do you support reopening concerts, football games, basketball games, bars, movie theaters, gyms, etc. to full capacity without any precautions of any kind?

 

[SoccerSammy]

Jesus. You get so triggered by race, that you lose your ability to understand English.

being accused of racism because I have conservative values does that to a person.... Not sure why you disapproved of my English, but maybe it's my second language and I'm deeply offended by the callousness you display by criticizing me.

 

[SoccerSammy]

Where are kids having to go to public places to get wifi for online school? I've seen huge programs all over the country where school districts partner with telecoms to make sure kids have access to the internet. I'd be interested to know because those school districts can be directed to those programs.

In terms of lockdowns - do you support reopening concerts, football games, basketball games, bars, movie theaters, gyms, etc. to full capacity without any precautions of any kind?

yes.... I do

 

[SoccerSammy]

Who is arguing for shutting down the world? It is Scott Atlas arguing against masks and social distancing. Two things easy enough even White 30-year-old Georgians could do if they wanted.

oh to be 30 again..... I'm glad it's "easy" to social distance. Some of us still remember a time when it was nice to shake a person's hand and God Forbid... even HUG them!! AAARRRRGGGHHH.... That ought to send you into a frenzy.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Where are kids having to go to public places to get wifi for online school? I've seen huge programs all over the country where school districts partner with telecoms to make sure kids have access to the internet. I'd be interested to know because those school districts can be directed to those programs.

In terms of lockdowns - do you support reopening concerts, football games, basketball games, bars, movie theaters, gyms, etc. to full capacity without any precautions of any kind?

i've seen multiple stories about kids having to do that. most recently in new mexico. not hard to imagine as internet isn't cheap and more than 8 million falling into poverty since may due to the pandemic. it appears the school districts have it but kids are at home for online school and don't have it

definitely do not support reopening all of that stuff to full capacity without precautions. i'd like to see masks mandated and social distancing requirements etc. everything and anything we can do short of lockdowns

 

[hoosboot]

i've seen multiple stories about kids having to do that. most recently in new mexico. not hard to imagine as internet isn't cheap and more than 8 million falling into poverty since may due to the pandemic.

definitely do not support reopening all of that stuff to full capacity without precautions. i'd like to see masks mandated and social distancing requirements etc. everything and anything we can do short of lockdowns

I think that's the interesting distinction and I think that's where most of the people in the country stand (the foolishness of Sammys aside.) I see absolutely no one with a strong appetite for more lockdown. Everyone has coronavirus fatigue. The differences come in where to draw the lines and how to mitigate the negative impacts drawing those lines have. There are reasonable conversations about how we can safely accomplish health safety and economic progress to have with people like you who recognize that there are risks that we are trying to address, but those conversations are made insanely more difficult by the people who don't acknowledge wither the dangers being faced or their responsibility to protect their fellow Americans with simple safety precautions.

 

[cosmickid]

read an article yesterday that 8 million plus in the US have fallen into poverty since may. hard to quantify the magnitude the pandemic has had on the world, but viewing this issue solely within the spectrum of science and covid consequences related to same is a mistake in my view. covid deaths/hospitalizations/ir and the scientists views on same should not be dispositive in making policy decisions, but a factor. igw, while often maligned and no offense to him often providing impractical suggestions, is at least proffering ideas. if a vaccine is in the offing great; but if it falls through i hope biden and his team begin figuring out ways to isolate certain populations and remunerate same because lockdowns are no longer a viable answer. the consequences to lockdowns are too great

I believe the topic of the thread is the concept of herd immunity. I remember a few months back there were a number of posters linking to articles about the "Swedish Success". But in the past couple of days, a number of articles have suggested that Sweden is rethinking the whole "herd immunity" concept and in fact re-evaluating the lax COVID policy they originally encouraged and have been following up till now...

"Swedish authorities appear to be reconsidering their notoriously lax approach to COVID-19 containment, which has contributed to one of the world’s higher coronavirus death rates.

Starting Oct. 19, regional health authorities may direct citizens to avoid high-risk areas such as gyms, concerts, public transportation and shopping centers, the Telegraph reports. They may also encourage residents to avoid socializing with elderly or other high-risk individuals.

“It’s more of a lockdown situation—but a local lockdown,” Dr. Johan Nojd, who leads the infectious diseases department in the city of Uppsala, told the Telegraph."

Sweden May Be Strengthening Its Lax COVID-19 Containment Strategy

It will include new local recommendations

time.com

Swedish Economist Lars Calmfors on the cost of "saving Sweden's economy"...

By Lars Calmfors

Lars Calmfors is professor emeritus in International Economics at Stockholm University, Research Fellow at the Research Institute of Industrial Economics, and a Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. He was the chair of the European Economic Advisory Group and the Swedish Fiscal Policy Council.
Oct. 20, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. EDT

When the coronavirus pandemic gained momentum in the spring, Sweden chose a less restrictive containment strategy than most other countries did, including its Nordic neighbors. Some medical experts and economists, in and out of Sweden, have criticized its policy for being too lenient. Others, from Elon Musk to National Review columnists, have hailed it as a role model for allegedly keeping the economy open, staving off the consequences of a harsher lockdown. President Trump’s medical adviser Scott Atlas has advocated that the United States adopt the Swedish approach to the pandemic.

Sweden’s strategy indeed likely helped the economy — but this came at too high a cost, in terms of lives lost. Taking a similar approach in the United States would, in all probability, be even more costly, because unlike Sweden and other European countries, the United States does not have a centralized, publicly funded health-care system with universal coverage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/20/sweden-economy-pandemic-strategy/

 

[sglowrider]

Who is arguing for shutting down the world? It is Scott Atlas arguing against masks and social distancing. Two things easy enough even White 30-year-old Georgians could do if they wanted.

Don't be too optimistic...

 

[mcmurtry66]

I believe the topic of the thread is the concept of herd immunity. I remember a few months back there were a number of posters linking to articles about the "Swedish Success". But in the past couple of days, a number of articles have suggested that Sweden is rethinking the whole "herd immunity" concept and in fact re-evaluating the lax COVID policy they originally encouraged and have been following up till now...

"Swedish authorities appear to be reconsidering their notoriously lax approach to COVID-19 containment, which has contributed to one of the world’s higher coronavirus death rates.

Starting Oct. 19, regional health authorities may direct citizens to avoid high-risk areas such as gyms, concerts, public transportation and shopping centers, the Telegraph reports. They may also encourage residents to avoid socializing with elderly or other high-risk individuals.

“It’s more of a lockdown situation—but a local lockdown,” Dr. Johan Nojd, who leads the infectious diseases department in the city of Uppsala, told the Telegraph."

Sweden May Be Strengthening Its Lax COVID-19 Containment Strategy

It will include new local recommendations

time.com

Swedish Economist Lars Calmfors on the cost of "saving Sweden's economy"...

By Lars Calmfors

Lars Calmfors is professor emeritus in International Economics at Stockholm University, Research Fellow at the Research Institute of Industrial Economics, and a Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. He was the chair of the European Economic Advisory Group and the Swedish Fiscal Policy Council.
Oct. 20, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. EDT

When the coronavirus pandemic gained momentum in the spring, Sweden chose a less restrictive containment strategy than most other countries did, including its Nordic neighbors. Some medical experts and economists, in and out of Sweden, have criticized its policy for being too lenient. Others, from Elon Musk to National Review columnists, have hailed it as a role model for allegedly keeping the economy open, staving off the consequences of a harsher lockdown. President Trump’s medical adviser Scott Atlas has advocated that the United States adopt the Swedish approach to the pandemic.

Sweden’s strategy indeed likely helped the economy — but this came at too high a cost, in terms of lives lost. Taking a similar approach in the United States would, in all probability, be even more costly, because unlike Sweden and other European countries, the United States does not have a centralized, publicly funded health-care system with universal coverage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/20/sweden-economy-pandemic-strategy/

Yeah there doesn’t seem to be enough data for the risk of attempting herd immunity. Wear masks, social distance, and isolate the vulnerable is about the only plausible course to mitigate the consequences of Covid. 8 million new people in poverty in the US since May is also a health crisis

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

oh to be 30 again..... I'm glad it's "easy" to social distance. Some of us still remember a time when it was nice to shake a person's hand and God Forbid... even HUG them!! AAARRRRGGGHHH.... That ought to send you into a frenzy.

 

[DrHoops]

Trump Covid adviser Scott Atlas pushes herd immunity
White House team member wants to protect vulnerable while letting virus run its course

While Donald Trump is on the campaign trail, his administration’s coronavirus policy is increasingly being shaped by Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist who has been championing a new version of the controversial “herd immunity” strategy.

The US president appointed Dr Atlas to his coronavirus task force earlier this year, and his voice has become increasingly prominent in recent weeks as other members have been sidelined. Scientists are concerned that Dr Atlas’ renewed backing of a herd immunity strategy that protects the most vulnerable while allowing the virus to run its course among the rest of the population could undermine efforts to control an incipient “winter wave”. “Mostly, he has tried to suppress or alter information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has contributed to the loss of public confidence in the medical community,” said Barry Bloom, professor of public health at Harvard.

The White House declined to comment, while Dr Atlas did not respond to a request to do so. Coronavirus cases have been rising across the US in recent weeks, topping 50,000 a day for several days in a row for the first time since August. Scientists warn this could be the start of a “winter wave”, which will need to be contained with aggressive measures to contain the rise to prevent an exponential increase in infections.

Despite this, the White House is urging states not to impose lockdowns again. A senior administration official said earlier this week: “Lockdowns do not eliminate the virus; lockdowns are extremely harmful; and the best policy to save lives is to aggressively protect the vulnerable and open schools and society.” Officials say the most prominent voice in promoting this policy has been Dr Atlas. Unlike some others on the task force, Dr Atlas does not have a background in epidemiology, but he is known in rightwing policy circles as a former healthcare adviser to both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney during their failed presidential bids.

Mr Trump appointed him to the task force after a string of appearances on Fox News during which he argued combatively against lockdowns. Even if Mr Trump loses next month’s election, he and his advisers will remain in charge of the country's coronavirus response until at least January, when the presidential inauguration will take place. In recent weeks Dr Atlas has promoted a report known as the “Great Barrington Declaration”, which calls for a public strategy of “focused protection” of the vulnerable to build up herd immunity.

The report’s findings have been undermined by studies showing that far fewer Americans have built up an immunity to Covid-19 than would be required to achieve herd immunity, and by some signs that people can be reinfected. Martin Kulldorff, one of the report’s authors, told the Financial Times he had consulted Dr Atlas about the paper before its publication, and has since met both him and Alex Azar, the US health secretary, to talk about its conclusions.

“Dr Atlas is a very important voice in terms of basic public health proposals and a strong thinker,” said Mr Kulldorff. Dr Atlas’ intervention is the latest in a series of moves that have irritated other scientific advisers within the administration. He was one of the advisers who pushed for the CDC to change its guidance so that it no longer recommended people without symptoms be tested, even if they had been in contact with someone with the virus. Those guidelines were changed back soon afterwards following widespread criticism.

Last month, Dr Atlas publicly contradicted his fellow task force members Anthony Fauci and Robert Redfield, who had told Congress earlier in the day that 90 per cent of Americans still remained susceptible to the disease. That row erupted when Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was overheard on a flight saying: “Everything [Dr Atlas] says is false.”

Those close to the task force say the normally soft-spoken Dr Redfield has on occasion become irate at Dr Atlas, clashing particularly over the CDC testing guidance. Meanwhile, Dr Atlas’ colleagues at Stanford University have also voiced their alarm, with 78 of them signing an open letter saying: “Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities.”

As he has faced mounting criticism, Dr Atlas has pushed back aggressively. He has retweeted criticism of Dr Fauci, accused his critics of “instilling fear”, and his lawyer has threatened to sue the signatories of the Stanford letter. His allies say these political interventions belie a thoughtful scientist who is interested mainly in following evidence, even if others in his field disagree. “Scott Atlas does not argue, he simply presents the scientific evidence,” said Paul Peterson, who like Dr Atlas is a senior fellow at the rightwing think-tank Hoover Institution.

Sally Pipes, the chief executive of the Pacific Research Institute, worked alongside Dr Atlas as adviser to Mr Giuliani in 2007. She said he was primarily motivated at that time by a libertarian dislike of Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms. “We were very concerned we might move to a single-payer system, and we wanted to stop the government running healthcare like it does in Canada,” she said.

Both Dr Atlas’ friends and critics say his libertarian views have guided his response to coronavirus. But his critics warn those views have overridden the scientific evidence. “He is a political operative with no scientific background to make recommendations that affect millions of lives,” said Mr Bloom. “It is like asking a microbiologist to read brain scans and determine who has cancer.”

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication

www.ft.com

Pro-Life Republicans.

 

[SoccerSammy]

Yeah there doesn’t seem to be enough data for the risk of attempting herd immunity. Wear masks, social distance, and isolate the vulnerable is about the only plausible course to mitigate the consequences of Covid. 8 million new people in poverty in the US since May is also a health crisis

Unfortunately the people making the decisions to prevent human interaction don't care about anything except COVID cases and COVID deaths... literally nothing else matters..