Herd immunity is a myth, infectious disease experts warn

[canetoad]

If Australia were to lift all restrictions in the pursuit of herd immunity we should expect cycling epidemics of COVID-19, increased absenteeism, and ultimately more deaths, one of Australia's leading pandemic experts has warned.

Infectious disease expert Professor Raina MacIntyre issued the warning on Tuesday in a COVID-19 pandemic update at the University of NSW's Kirby Institute – the first to collate data from international medical journals and universities since the disease was identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019.

Professor MacIntyre, who is head of the Biosecurity Research Program at the institute, spoke of the "myth of herd immunity" – exposing a population to the virus for the purposes of building up natural immunity and sacrificing the vulnerable.

"It does have a connotation of eugenics," she said. "What you will see is a large increase in cases for little gain because probably by the time you get to about 20 to 30 per cent of the population impacted, you'll start putting the brakes on and having more lockdowns because the health system will be too severely impacted.

More: https://www.theage.com.au/national/herd-immunity-is-a-myth-infectious-disease-experts-warn-20200415-p54k0c.html

[qazplm135]

1. I don't think "herd immunity"

equals "exposing a population to the virus for the purposes of building up a natural immunity and sacrificing the vulnerable."

That's just crass madness, not herd immunity.

[Susan Calvin]

10. Herd immunity

Means vaccinations.

[Igel]

18. Herd immunity means sufficient numbers

immune to stop transmission fairly quickly.

That can be from being infected or vaccinated.

[Susan Calvin]

23. Well, given the mortality rate.

Getting it without vaccinations would be a very hard way to do

[RobinA]

24. Herd Immunity Doesn't

care about mortality rate, as long as there is enough herd left to carry on...immune to the killer, so the herd can expand.

[Susan Calvin]

26. Exactly. nt

[underpants]

2. All of these hints about immunity are horribly irresponsible

I’ve heard hints about it for weeks and none of it is based on anything real. No evidence. None.

[unblock]

3. terrible headline (from the link, i see you just copied it, canetoad)

the article isn't saying that the concept of herd immunity is a myth at all.

it's just saying that recklessly exposing people to the virus thinking that herd immunity will make it all ok is a horrendous strategy that would result in many, many unnecessary deaths before we reach the point where most of the survivors have acquired immunity.

[Celerity]

9. [phone]

[ramen]

15. Yeah, this is highly misleading as a headline. nt

[canetoad]

17. Yeah, I agree unblock

They are not discussing herd immunity across the board for all illnesses, but this virus in particular.

[Girard442]

4. If you mass enough people in front of an onrushing locomotive...

...you may ultimately bring it to a halt — but at what cost?

[sdfernando]

12. This is a very good analogy

Simple and easy to understand.

[Tweedy]

14. This virus is mindless

It will not be appeased by human sacrifice.

Has that ever worked on anything?

Never

Insane, cruel and ultimately self destructive

[Girard442]

19. It actually would work if you want to intentionally sacrifice 5-10% of the population.

But then the survivors would just be soulless monsters walking around. Not much of a life.

[Tweedy]

27. Even then, the tragic loss of life would be higher

What happens to healthcare workers if we stretch their capabilities until they break?

Right now, although we call them heroes, we are not providing them with the protection they need.

What happens to healthcare workers if 5-10% more become infected ?

What happens to us when there are doctor and nurse shortages? This may be happening already. There is no federal plan to quickly educate and train anybody, much less the doctor needed to intubate you.

What happens when the trash collectors succumb? The grocery store clerks? The firemen, emt's and police? What happens when the truckers can truck no more?

This is madness. Right now, we should have safe, virus free places for every essential worker to be when they aren't working. These places should be free.

Essential workers should not have to compete with us, the homebound, for supplies or delivery. That, too, should be free.

We are already asking essential workers to risk their lives for us, the least we can do is gift them room and board. The worst thing we can do is go outside to get haircuts before actual epidemiologists tell us it is safe to do so.

Appeasement of a virus, or the economy, with human sacrifice is a recipe for many multiples more of us before death's door.

Competent expertise is necessary.

Protest your idiot governor who tells you to go play Beachside with a letter to the editor and stay safe inside.

This time we are the silent super majority.

[C_U_L8R]

5. It sounds more like Ayn Rand nonsense

The logic and evidence just isn't there

[beastie boy]

6. Herd immunity for Dummies, courtesy of Wikipedia

It appears the aforementioned dummies include the editors of The Age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#/media/File:Herd_immunity.svg

Herd immunity s not a myth. It has nothing to do with unchecked exposure of a population to a pathogen, for the purpose of building immunity or otherwise. It has nothing to do with sacrificing the vulnerable.

Herd immunity is not a strategy to combat an epidemic. It's a condition. A condition that can be achieved by various means. Most common example: widespread vaccination of a population (duh!). Herd immunity simply means that the more members of a population develop immunity ("exposing the population to the virus for the purposes of building up natural immunity and sacrificing the vulnerable" is a batshit insane statement which belies abysmal ignorance of the concept of herd immunity) to a pathogen, the lesser the risk of the epidemic spreading among the population is.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Herd immunity is not the issue, it is how you GET THERE. 3 ways

1) Let 'er rip through the population. Bam! healthcare system overwhelmed for a long period of time, people dying at home in droves, mass trench graves. Maximum mortality.

2) Lockdown followed by very careful release bit by bit, so healthcare system does not get overwhelmed. Hard to do, but feasible. This also allows time for more effective treatments to be found to minimize death and long term organ damage.

3) Lockdown until vaccine is available. When 80-90% are vaccinated, then you have close to effective herd immunity.

Actually, can combine 2 and 3 by flattening out the curve enough until vaccine is available.

Herd immunity will be achieved. I do not think this is a virus like MERS that kind of burns itself out. So, take your pick.

[BamaRefugee]

11. Don't forget the cholera epidemic as bodies pile up in the streets. Flu could be fatal too by fall,

to anyone already "recovered" from Covid but seriously weakened.

By then people won't need any kind of directive to stay inside, the primitive urge to survive will ensure that they do it.

Of course some governmental agency is going to have to go out and find "volunteers" to gather the rotting dead. Those people ( 90% certain to be minorities) will of course, in turn, be infected and die, and the cycle will continue.

'Murica!

[Thekaspervote]

16. This! It seems actual natural herd immunity is being confused wth the purposeful exposure of the

Populous to the virus. The difference being purposeful .....as did Sweden.

Also, part of herd immunity can come from a successful vaccine

[Blue_true]

20. MERS burned itself out because it was efficient at killing it's hosts before they

transmitted it.

What I want to see ultimately explained is why the virus infects two people that have no underlying health issues, kills one but hardly leave a scratch on the other. Making a totally uneducated guess, there is something in a person that catalyzes covid19, if you have that, you're likely dead.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. One theory to explain different outcomes is that the initial viral load at infection might count

Theory being that if you get a small amount of virus, your body has a chance to beat it.

And that if a person gets a big dose, their body is overwhelmed and ends up in cytokine storm with organ damage which is dicey to survive.

[Blue_true]

25. That makes sense. nt

[Chainfire]

8. The Right is grasping at straws

Their delayed actions caused this situation to be far worse than it had to be. They just can not accept the fact that you can't solve the economic problem, that the virus created, until you solve the virus problem. They want to send the carpenter into a burning home to begin rebuilding while the fire dept. is still fighting the blaze. If the carpenter loses his life, there are other carpenters. It is herd insanity.

The leadership of the Right know what is going to happen to the workers by reopening too soon, but they are willing to piss away lives on the slim chance that they will resume making money. The move is going to backfire.

We need to do some housekeeping, the trash needs taking to the curb.

[relayerbob]

13. Technically

Its not a myth, it just requires that something like 80% or more of the population get the disease. And of course, by destroying the medical system, the death rate won't be single digits rates ... tens of millions would be dead before we reached "herd immunity" - and of course, by then, the next disease will have taken over..

Walking dead = GOP sheep

[BGBD]

21. This

It absolutely exists. just look at Measles, as long as a certain amount of people are immunized, it protects those who arent as well.

The myth is the idea that you can just quickly get there by exposing everyone in a giant chicken pox party