I predict swift application of the banhammer for those bumping these types of threads.

So now its good for more people to get infected because you get stronger and more complete herd immunty? Is the goal herd immunity?

I thought it was to get through this with a minimum of lives lost and minimum economic cost.

I didn't advocate for micromanaging it, and I don't see any logical tie in to progressivism or collectivism.

k2aggie07 said:

---

So now its good for more people to get infected because you get stronger and more complete herd immunty? Is the goal herd immunity?

I thought it was to get through this with a minimum of lives lost and minimum economic cost.

I didn't advocate for micromanaging it, and I don't see any logical tie in to progressivism or collectivism.

---

Of course you don't. It's just one more spoke in the wheel of the ever changing reaction to try and control the masses in the name of "you're too stupid to think for yourself" faux science. You virus huggers just don't understand the carnage that's happening and will continue to happen once these very average virus dies. Even if a million died from the virus that will pale in comparison but you keep hollering all is well!

I understand that. I've actually said that several times on this thread. Glad we have that common ground.

We were talking about overshoot beyond herd immunity though. Herd immunity is an inevitable end point one way or another. It's not a goal. The goal is to get there with a minimum of economic disruption and loss of life.

What's the advantage to additional people getting infected beyond herd immunity?

Perhaps I don't know what you mean by micromanagement. This seems like the common approach on this board - politicize, force it to a false binary choice, and then deride the other side. I'm likely to your right economically and politically.

Maybe if you tell me what "my" approach is, we can find out of if it is actually wrong-headed.

See? Politicize, force to binary, deride the other.

Add angry faces and cute catch phrases like "faux science" and "virus huggers" for bonus stars.

Exactly

k2aggie07 said:

---

So now its good for more people to get infected because you get stronger and more complete herd immunty? Is the goal herd immunity?

I thought it was to get through this with a minimum of lives lost and minimum economic cost.

I didn't advocate for micromanaging it, and I don't see any logical tie in to progressivism or collectivism.

---

Herd immunity is a means to reach the goals you mentioned.

It's the end. Infections or a vaccine (unlikely) are the means. But the final number of infections is a moving target. You get herd immunity plus some overshoot. We're talking double digit percent overshoot potential. That translates to millions of infections and ?? Lives (use whatever fatality rate you like).

k2aggie07 said:

---

I understand that. I've actually said that several times on this thread. Glad we have that common ground.

We were talking about overshoot beyond herd immunity though. Herd immunity is an inevitable end point one way or another. It's not a goal. The goal is to get there with a minimum of economic disruption and loss of life.

What's the advantage to additional people getting infected beyond herd immunity?

Perhaps I don't know what you mean by micromanagement. This seems like the common approach on this board - politicize, force it to a false binary choice, and then deride the other side. I'm likely to your right economically and politically.

Maybe if you tell me what "my" approach is, we can find out of if it is actually wrong-headed.

---

HI is not an objective point to be reached then stop. It is a subjective point; a degree. The lower the "point" or degree is, the more impact the bug will continue to have.

"Perhaps I don't know what you mean by micromanagement."

Really? Your discussion involves riding the brakes to perfectly approach the HI "point" just right then stop to avoid overshoot. ooookay.

This is the problem with very intelligent people. You can take in enormous amounts of info, process and formulate but so often don't have a balanced understanding of the big picture. Just like Dr. Fauci (he is a hammer and the bug is a nail).

Don't mean it as a flame. Take a step back will help.

k2aggie07 said:

---

It's the end. Infections or a vaccine (unlikely) are the means. But the final number of infections is a moving target. You get herd immunity plus some overshoot. We're talking double digit percent overshoot potential. That translates to millions of infections and ?? Lives (use whatever fatality rate you like).

---

As a 71 yr old who might be at risk, I say go for it...at this stage, the economy is more important than theoretical overshoot. Most of the "extra deaths" will come off the Social Security rolls.

I'm not advocating for riding the brakes. I was talking about what overshoot was. It's not feasible to have no overshoot.

But any reduction in transmission rate reduces overshoot. There's cheap reduction (PSAs and hygiene campaigns) and expensive reduction (shutdowns). All have some impact. The argument shouldn't be binary - nothing vs everything. It's what makes sense to achieve herd immunity without unnecessary overshoot. It's a balance. this is against "open it all up" but it's just as much against "suppression forever".

Open.
It.
Up.


That's what is needed. We can carry the threeve, divided by the fif, all day. Doesn't matter. Live life.

To be clear, I'm fine with open it up*

*with aggressive contact tracing and testing, encouraging work from home and voluntary social distancing policies.

The stay at home policies were both ineffective AND come with a moral and political hazard. The problem wasn't with the 15 days of suppression to start with, it was with the complete lack of exit strategy for that which led to all the confusion and "shutdown malaise."

k2aggie07 said:

---

To be clear, I'm fine with open it up*

*with aggressive contact tracing and testing, encouraging work from home and voluntary social distancing policies.

The stay at home policies were both ineffective AND come with a moral and political hazard. The problem wasn't with the 15 days of suppression to start with, it was with the complete lack of exit strategy for that which led to all the confusion and "shutdown malaise."

---

I have nothing to add other than when I quote your post it gives a paragraph that wasnt there. That's really weird.

Never mind. I wasnt seeing your edit on the mobile app.

well that and the hospitalization rate was a fraction of what was estimated/predicted

k2aggie07 said:

---

To be clear, I'm fine with open it up*

*with aggressive contact tracing and testing, encouraging work from home and voluntary social distancing policies.

The stay at home policies were both ineffective AND come with a moral and political hazard. The problem wasn't with the 15 days of suppression to start with, it was with the complete lack of exit strategy for that which led to all the confusion and "shutdown malaise."

---

Meh.

Unnecessary

Open it up. Full stop.

why stop there?

why not forced variolation?

it's just the flu. if you die from it, it's cuz you were already too weak.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I understand that. I've actually said that several times on this thread. Glad we have that common ground.

We were talking about overshoot beyond herd immunity though. Herd immunity is an inevitable end point one way or another. It's not a goal. The goal is to get there with a minimum of economic disruption and loss of life.

What's the advantage to additional people getting infected beyond herd immunity?

Perhaps I don't know what you mean by micromanagement. This seems like the common approach on this board - politicize, force it to a false binary choice, and then deride the other side. I'm likely to your right economically and politically.

Maybe if you tell me what "my" approach is, we can find out of if it is actually wrong-headed.

---

I think the goal can be best summarized as "try to reach herd immunity as quickly and as safely (meaning reduced loss of life) as possible."

That means sheltering high risk groups and resuming life for others. That means we safeguard the hospital beds and PPE needed for hot spots. That means lots and lots of blind sampling of antibody growth.

Quote:

---

The problem wasn't with the 15 days of suppression to start with,

---

Had the whole US done this starting on March 16th through the end of the month, maybe, just maybe things would have been a bit better. Too many states didn't act until a week or 2 later. It should have been "5 o'clock somewhere" for the past month.

dBoy99 said:

---

k2 is not a virus hugger. He's just a super hi-level intelligence guy who breaks down complex subjects like epidemiology, virology, statistics, genetics, and immunology (just to name a few) for us rubes on forum 16. He's a self-taught, super genius expert. He doesn't pick sides - he's above all that. He is an uninvolved 3rd party, just compiling knowledge and sharing it with us. He doesn't care if we all live or die or crash the economy - his purpose is to share information and try to enlighten us.

Think of him as an unbiased, without ulterior motives Dr. Tony Fauci.

---

That was just mean...

dBoy99 said:

---

k2 is not a virus hugger. He's just a super hi-level intelligence guy who breaks down complex subjects like epidemiology, virology, statistics, genetics, and immunology (just to name a few) for us rubes on forum 16. He's a self-taught, super genius expert. He doesn't pick sides - he's above all that. He is an uninvolved 3rd party, just compiling knowledge and sharing it with us. He doesn't care if we all live or die or crash the economy - his purpose is to share information and try to enlighten us.

Think of him as an unbiased, without ulterior motives Dr. Tony Fauci.

---

lol

I do not like the idea of contact tracing either. I'm not comfortable with that at all. Yes I know the technology already exists and in some ways already practiced. But applying it here is a no go for me. Let the government do that and they will never stop. Things like that never go away.

Totally agreed - I am *way* more concerned about the civil liberties with contact tracing vs stay at home orders.

I absolutely do NOT think a surveillance program is the way to go. Unfortunately I don't even trust an opt-in surveillance program. I frankly don't trust any entity to do that. The cat's out of the bag though, cell phones give off so much personal identifying information and location data as it is that it's probably a moot point - but why put the cherry on top?

When I talked about tracing I meant more of what we were doing in March, just scaled up - where have you been, who did you talk to, then work the chain. Traditional detective type work, not big brother surveillance work.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Totally agreed - I am *way* more concerned about the civil liberties with contact tracing vs stay at home orders.

I absolutely do NOT think a surveillance program is the way to go. Unfortunately I don't even trust an opt-in surveillance program. I frankly don't trust any entity to do that. The cat's out of the bag though, cell phones give off so much personal identifying information and location data as it is that it's probably a moot point - but why put the cherry on top?

When I talked about tracing I meant more of what we were doing in March, just scaled up - where have you been, who did you talk to, then work the chain. Traditional detective type work, not big brother surveillance work.

---

Well with all due respect, why should anyone give a **** what you think or "trust"?

You're just some guy on the internet, just like everyone else.

I'm agreeing with another poster - what a dick, right?

k2aggie07 said:

---

I'm agreeing with another poster - what a dick, right?

---

It's an excel formula..

=if(username=k2aggie07,"assume jerk and reply with angry blast post","ignore")

dBoy99 said:

---

k2 is not a virus hugger. He's just a super hi-level intelligence guy who breaks down complex subjects like epidemiology, virology, statistics, genetics, and immunology (just to name a few) for us rubes on forum 16. He's a self-taught, super genius expert. He doesn't pick sides - he's above all that. He is an uninvolved 3rd party, just compiling knowledge and sharing it with us. He doesn't care if we all live or die or crash the economy - his purpose is to share information and try to enlighten us.

Think of him as an unbiased, without ulterior motives Dr. Tony Fauci.

---

Here's the illogical problem with the whole"overshoot" narrative that is just one more thing these super genius experts seem to miss when they see these talking points and say, "hey, that makes sense" without any common sense examining. You won't over shoot 70% unless people actively seek vulnerable people to intentionally infect. Why you ask and they never do? We can rush to herd immunity but there are safety catches that start to automatically slow this thing down dramatically. Between 30-50%, the infection rate drops dramatically because host begin to lose receptors to spread to. You may overshoot 50% but at that point natural infection reduction starts to put a hard break on the spread. You want to say you can overshoot 50%, ok, but at that point the susceptible will be so spread out that it naturally begins to flame out. You'll then, short of actively seeking receptors, gradually get to the 70% that likely kills it. I can't keep you in shackles if I give you a logical prediction of how to reach herd immunity quickly because it would blow my desire of scaring the **** out of you. Now I'm not saying K2 has that narrative, he's just regurgitating. Hence the "stay calm, all is well" you didn't understand.

Forgive me, but the overshoot dynamic is exactly the result of what you're describing. The herd immunity number and the number of people left uninfected aren't the same. The difference is overshoot... all of the overshoot is the number of infections that happen after that inflection point. But that's all theory for an unmitigated outbreak, which we don't have, which isn't going to happen, so it doesn't matter.

The reason I brought up overshoot was because there's a thought that the area under the curve is the same regardless of how fast the outbreak happens. It's not. Herd immunity is fixed, but overshoot isn't.

RGLAG85 said:

---

dBoy99 said:

---

k2 is not a virus hugger. He's just a super hi-level intelligence guy who breaks down complex subjects like epidemiology, virology, statistics, genetics, and immunology (just to name a few) for us rubes on forum 16. He's a self-taught, super genius expert. He doesn't pick sides - he's above all that. He is an uninvolved 3rd party, just compiling knowledge and sharing it with us. He doesn't care if we all live or die or crash the economy - his purpose is to share information and try to enlighten us.

Think of him as an unbiased, without ulterior motives Dr. Tony Fauci.

---

Here's the illogical problem with the whole"overshoot" narrative that is just one more thing these super genius experts seem to miss when they see these talking points and say, "hey, that makes sense" without any common sense examining. You won't over shoot 70% unless people actively seek vulnerable people to intentionally infect. Why you ask and they never do? We can rush to herd immunity but there are safety catches that start to automatically slow this thing down dramatically. Between 30-50%, the infection rate drops dramatically because host begin to lose receptors to spread to. You may overshoot 50% but at that point natural infection reduction starts to put a hard break on the spread. You want to say you can overshoot 50%, ok, but at that point the susceptible will be so spread out that it naturally begins to flame out. You'll then, short of actively seeking receptors, gradually get to the 70% that likely kills it. I can't keep you in shackles if I give you a logical prediction of how to reach herd immunity quickly because it would blow my desire of scaring the **** out of you. Now I'm not saying K2 has that narrative, he's just regurgitating. Hence the "stay calm, all is well" you didn't understand.

---

You see, that's where aggressive contact tracing comes in and we insure that the previously infected find the remaining "clean" people and sit the spreaders in a chinese buffet restaurant upwind of the AC unit. Problem solved.

HI is not fixed, as I've described above. Any point assigned is an arbitrary number. Subjective. There is no overshoot, in my opinion. It is a matter of degrees.

ETA: I don't care of some researchers HI point. Its still arbitrary and subjective.

yeah, I agree, especially when you're talking about a population the size of the US. I suppose we may wind up with a very uneven spread. And herd immunity is a moving target too, because I guess it depends in some way on the naive transmission rate but could also be changed by effective transmission rate.

I think theory wise it's not subjective though - it's just a number related to transmission rate.In a petri dish, that's the number. That doesn't mean that's what you're going to get in reality.