Last week I read a news article on how the CDC are moving away from a target of controlling the covid epidemic by trying to reach herd immunity. In the words of Dr Jefferson Jones, a medical officer on the CDC’s COVID-19 Epidemiology Task Force: The prospects for meeting a clear herd-immunity target are “very complicated,” … Thinking that we’ll be able to achieve some kind of threshold where there’ll be no more transmission of infections may not be possible,”
Bartram, this is a splendid, very understandable piece.
In conjunction with the Roy Anderson study, everything now becomes clear for the cockupist.
They are just trying to increase the vaxx rare to reach HI and following RMA's recommendations to a T.
Besides misunderstanding HI, ignoring its complexities and often likely still equating it with elimination, they ignore that negative VE, like confirmed now in the UK, by definition/math leeds to a RISE in cases, as we can all witness now. The question then becomes: are the additional hospitalisations/deaths due to the vaxx rate push increased rise in cases lower than the ones prevented through that additional vaxxing, or lower than if vaxxing was stopped now, or if it had only been performed with those at most risk.
I think we all know the answer to that intuitively, but maybe you can throw some mathematical light on it?!
Here in NZ herd immunity was initially suggested at 70%, then retracted, then no level was high enough, then 90% was the magic double vaccinated number then experts said it was not enough. Zero talk of natural immunity. Really. I think the state is just in the business of selling vaccines at this stage. That's the only theory that makes all the insanity make sense. NZ political class and media are in PR for Pfizer and this is the best business model I've ever seen.
Bartram, are you aware of the remarkable bad ranking of your blog posts in Google Search? It's a shame. Only "the never ending search for herd immunity" (with quotes!) finally makes this page show up ... o tempora, o mores.
The never ending quest for herd immunity
Bartram, this is a splendid, very understandable piece.
In conjunction with the Roy Anderson study, everything now becomes clear for the cockupist.
They are just trying to increase the vaxx rare to reach HI and following RMA's recommendations to a T.
Besides misunderstanding HI, ignoring its complexities and often likely still equating it with elimination, they ignore that negative VE, like confirmed now in the UK, by definition/math leeds to a RISE in cases, as we can all witness now. The question then becomes: are the additional hospitalisations/deaths due to the vaxx rate push increased rise in cases lower than the ones prevented through that additional vaxxing, or lower than if vaxxing was stopped now, or if it had only been performed with those at most risk.
I think we all know the answer to that intuitively, but maybe you can throw some mathematical light on it?!
Here in NZ herd immunity was initially suggested at 70%, then retracted, then no level was high enough, then 90% was the magic double vaccinated number then experts said it was not enough. Zero talk of natural immunity. Really. I think the state is just in the business of selling vaccines at this stage. That's the only theory that makes all the insanity make sense. NZ political class and media are in PR for Pfizer and this is the best business model I've ever seen.
Hi. If a reproduction number is 3, but only 2 out of the three becomes transmissible then is the R number not 2, plus one dead end?
If on average a third of infections didn’t result in further transmissions then it makes the reproduction number of 3 a bit misleading.
How would this work out in a population?
Just thinking in general terms.
It is just something I’ve never heard being discussed before in R number conversations.
Thanks
Bartram, are you aware of the remarkable bad ranking of your blog posts in Google Search? It's a shame. Only "the never ending search for herd immunity" (with quotes!) finally makes this page show up ... o tempora, o mores.