7 ms·

Herd immunity is not just a buzzword. We have two options to reduce the harm of infectious diseases: eradicate them or build herd immunity. The first option has

Herd immunity is not just a buzzword. We have two options to reduce the harm of infectious diseases: eradicate them or build herd immunity. The first option has become impossible with this virus that's now truly global and likely much more spread than is known. Therefore herd immunity is the ONLY option. The question then is how to get as many people as possible immune - you'll either need a vaccine or many need to get the infection and survive. A vaccine is not on the horizon for another 6-12 months, so the best course of action is to build the number of survivors. What brings death? Mainly the sudden onslaught on the health system. If there is no bed, respirator, blood supply, ... Left then you're much more likely to have patients die than if you have a hospital at regular capacity. There are some that WILL for but by slowly building immunity (i.e. allowing some parts of the population to get exposed) you avoid the high death toll of an unmanaged outbreak. So if total eradication is impossible, slow infection rates are better than none. Why? Because if you don't build the immunity you will again have violent outbreaks killing many. And you simply can't lock everyone at home for another 6 months.

usaar333 6y ago
There is no reason you can't keep a disease at a very low level (to the point any given person is unlikely to get the disease over their lifetime) via testing, contact tracing and quarantine. Iceland and South Korea both prove you can in fact.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  Iceland is tiny and it is a little early to proclaim SK an unqualified success. If the only way to keep the disease at a very low level is to have a new normal of strong quarantine indefinitely, then you are asking for something unrealistic. Even more so in western democracies where people are accustomed to a great deal of personal freedom.
wl 6y ago
> If there is no bed, respirator... Most of the people who go on respirators die. If the health system is going to be our weapon here until the vaccine is developed, we need to find ways to manage the disease before it gets to the point where we intubate people. Remdesivir might be that drug, but we're unlikely to have the kind of supply needed for what you propose until after the first vaccines potentially may be available.
wolco 6y ago
Eradication is not impossible but takes will and choices. If the virus had certain death rates and longer periods where it remained dormant. We would have to make choices to eradicate that. We're in a different situation where we have different choices and outcomes.

usaar333 6y ago

There is no reason you can't keep a disease at a very low level (to the point any given person is unlikely to get the disease over their lifetime) via testing, contact tracing and quarantine. Iceland and South Korea both prove you can in fact.

rootusrootus 6y ago
Iceland is tiny and it is a little early to proclaim SK an unqualified success. If the only way to keep the disease at a very low level is to have a new normal of strong quarantine indefinitely, then you are asking for something unrealistic. Even more so in western democracies where people are accustomed to a great deal of personal freedom.

wl 6y ago

> If there is no bed, respirator... Most of the people who go on respirators die. If the health system is going to be our weapon here until the vaccine is developed, we need to find ways to manage the disease before it gets to the point where we intubate people. Remdesivir might be that drug, but we're unlikely to have the kind of supply needed for what you propose until after the first vaccines potentially may be available.

wolco 6y ago

Eradication is not impossible but takes will and choices. If the virus had certain death rates and longer periods where it remained dormant. We would have to make choices to eradicate that. We're in a different situation where we have different choices and outcomes.