Question Herd Immunity? A few million might die, and millions more damaged for life. Is it worth it for America?!

Page 2 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.
Jul 27, 2020
117
5
105
The world recovered from the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, without a cure for it ever being found.
The world might have "recovered", but tens of millions of people did not, and one can be certain it was never "erased from the human mind" since it is the primary citation when people think of pandemics. Global fatalities from a pandemic resulting from an infectious virus have a way of doing that to people's memories.

Since we live in a much more crowded world, with infectious diseases having the potential to spread all over it in a matter of days, the experts keep telling us to stamp out diseases like this, ASAP. Having some expertise in the pandemic myself, agreeing with the pros in virology and epidemiology is very simple - minimize spread, and actively work to eliminate the threat . No other approach is rational.

Sadly, this is becoming a redundant series of posts. Suffice it to say that most intelligent people are treating it for what it is, a deadly virus, with significant morbidity. They are doing what they can to prevent its spread, and hoping that one or more of the many vaccine candidates will control, if not eliminate it. And also hope that it doesn't return.
 
Is that a triple negative?
Ehn Ehn Ehn Ehn Ehn Ehn..... Only double, as omitting 'not' restores grammar rule. I deliberated on this. Besides flavour, I thought 'can't buy nothing' would not mean what I intended.


Every thing, every organism, has a resonating frequency. Disrupting this destroys the thing. People in the [allopathic] field do not consider everything, even things IN the field, such as using ultrasound to destroy pathogens, as someone [re-]discovered recently, and of which we have seen nothing since. Same with scrubbing brain plaque with ultrasound.

[ [ MESSAGE 27 ] ]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
Jul 27, 2020
117
5
105
can't (1) not (2) buy nothin (3).....

Will have to reconsider the triplicate designation following your rather involved, grammatically suspect response to a question that was posted almost a week ago......at least you are not fast on the trigger!

Regarding ultrasound sterilization, this is only applicable to items which can be placed within an ultrasonic chamber, typically a bath with water in it (1, 2). It is most commonly used for cleaning rather than sterilization. It has no practical application as a "field" sterilization procedure for goods and contact surfaces, etc.. Same as with brain work - very localized.

Nice try on that, but its limited application to sterilization is precisely why "we have seen nothing" about it.

But we simply have to give you a like on this one, (simply ignoring that triplicate denial).


1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_cleaning

2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26585014/
 
I aim to entertain.

I read your response last week at the end of my visit. I had posted several times, and thought I'd give people a break of seeing my name at the right of a thread listing. I visit weekly to give all of us a break. And traffic warrants no greater frequency.

I recall the article talked about having demonstrated scraping plaque off people's brains using a standard US device. I don't see the article I read, but provide the information I mentioned: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=ultrasound+brain+plaque&ia=web

Another article earlier this year talked about frequency disruption with lasers on tissue in a dish. Deep, non-destructive laser probing has existed for at least a couple/few years, at least according to a TED talk by a [female] pioneer in the field given then.

Using electrical fields has existed in non-Alternative space since at least '91. Before going anywhere, the research (Peabody) got shut down, very hush-hush, and both researchers mysteriously died a few years later.....
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2020
117
5
105
I aim to entertain.
When I first read one of your posts some time ago, figured you for a screwball.

After that strings of negatives, I realized your true motive. And you are doing a swell job. Thought I would help eliminate your image at the end of at least this thread, to give people a break, as you seem to desire. But don't take too many breaks. Your posts are now an interesting target for humor (or is that humour?).
 
Sep 18, 2020
2
0
10
There are recent reports in the news of an increasing interest in simply allowing the COVID-19 disease to run its course, unfettered from now on, while trying to protect the most susceptible people from catching it (if they have not already). Current efforts by some, inadvertent or intentional, tend to suggest that this is playing out right now. The impact of such a policy is much less costly to the economy, etc. which, some think, would rid us of the virus so that the survivors can "move on". This approach is known as Herd Immunity (1).

There are several reasons why this may not be a good idea. It will certainly result in many additional fatalities and morbidities, and by at least an order of magnitude. Most Americans likely would not find this acceptable. However. despite being In the majority, they currently have no means to alter the course of decisions, whoever is making them. Unfettered spread of the virus may also increases the possibility for more infective and lethal strains to develop (2). We must recall that the original SARs and the related MERS viruses had 10% and 30% fatality rates, respectively.

The greater the spread of the pandemic, the larger the number of viral replications and resultant mutations, any one of which may make the virus more infective, and/or more lethal. It could also work the other way around, perhaps resulting in a less lethal strain developing, and being less infective. It is unknown what mutations will arise in the future, but those advocating Herd Immunity are hoping that it will become less infective and less lethal. To most experts in medicine, "hope" is not a sound strategy for dealing with a lethal, infectious disease of as yet unknown "capabilities".

As of mid-July, a careful analysis (2) of existing data indicates that at least 65% of people would need to be infected (and likely higher) to attain Herd Immunity. Fatalities would reach over 2 million, with millions more suffering life-long morbidity - debilitating conditions from stroke, heart and vascular damage, kidney damage, etc.

The number of mutations would be vastly higher if it were allowed to infect and replicate freely. A direct quote from (2) summing things up regarding unfettered replication of this virus is below. Keep in mind that these results are from a pandemic largely contained at this time.

"More than 8000 observed single mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 genomes have raised serious concerns about changes in infectivity. Qualitatively, such infectivity is proportional to the binding affinity between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (S protein) and host ACE2 receptor. This work proposes a machine learning model to evaluate the relative infectivity following the mutations. We show that five out of six SARS-CoV-2 substrains have become more infectious, while the other one becomes less infectious. We found that a few potential future mutations on the S protein could lead to more dangerous new viruses."

end quote

Should the country continue trying to minimize the pandemic, treating it as a serious current and future threat, or simply let it run its course, hoping that things just get better?


(1) https://www.livescience.com/herd-immunity.html


"Mutations Strengthened SARS-CoV-2 Infectivity" (Michigan State University)

(2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375973/

There is no confirmation that immunity is even possible with this particular virus, (numbers of reinfections) so the issue of herd immunity is not proven, sadly. Vaccine may not be possible as this is among the common cold variety and there is still no "cure" for that. The WHO has failed the people of this planet by not containing and mitigating this in China (could have been anywhere, just happened to be there) when the deaths first started and they knew it was lethal. International travel kept going and that's how it spread rapidly. Most governments are failing their people terribly as well as those (anti-maskers) who think it is their right to violate and endanger the health & safety rights of the rest of us. We all want it to be "over" but some people are just not capable of reasoning, they are irrational at best. Now because of catastrophic neglect on the part of global health officials, we're all on damage control and nothing will be the same ever again. I feel for the children who have to deal with the messes we have made.
 
Sep 18, 2020
2
0
10
I agree with most of what you say. Look at it this way,every country is trying to produce a corona vaccine. In fact in many countries several labs will be vying to get their vaccines out first. What this means is hundreds? Maybe more vaccines each different from the other. The world recovered from the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, without a cure for it ever being found. A few years later the whole episode seemed to have been erased from the human mind. There was very little information about the 1918 pandemic in the public domain. Which solution is better? Take my own experience so far. Ten close friends and relations (different cities) caught the corona virus , nine of them recovered and are none the worse for wear. One died but he was well into his seventies and so is an anomalous case.

Hi: Nice to hear 9/10 lived, but I must ask, are you sure those who recovered are "none the worse for wear"? Likely not, likely they have permanent lung and other organ damage, leaving them prone to all kinds of future infections.
 
Jul 27, 2020
117
5
105
The WHO has failed the people of this planet by not containing and mitigating this in China (could have been anywhere, just happened to be there) when the deaths first started and they knew it was lethal.
While it is true that "mistakes" were made in the early days, especially suppression of information by those who should have known better, one must fully appreciate the nature of this virus to more accurately cast a net to catch those truly responsible for its early spread, especially beyond Asia. The level of asymptomatic spreading, which was first reported in March from Singapore at about 50% of infected people, is what really made a lot of this problem difficult for even the best of times and leaders.

Nevertheless, many mistakes were made that cannot be undone, but greatly contributed to the magnitude of the pandemic, and problems with shutting it down. Now, all effort must focus on the best means by which to deal with the problem, with all the problems. That, of course, is the whole problem. Who is really to blame for it all will be debated forever, depending on who you want it to be. Of course there are clear and obvious answers, but that is not the issue of this thread.

We all want it to be "over" but some people are just not capable of reasoning, they are irrational at best.
This is going to be the biggest problem of all, in the short term. The only solution for these people is a vaccine - which will help everyone involved. Think of it as vaccinating the dog so it does not give you rabies.

Only the people in the world who know enough to help, or those most worried about their health for obvious reasons, are going to be motivated to control it. There is little to be done about those who refuse to conform to the requirements. All we can hope for is rational approaches and enforcement of control measures and each of those who care doing what they can to minimize infectivity.

You should also be aware there are other viruses in the world that could visit from anywhere, that could also cause a problem. This episode with SARS-CoV-2 could be one of any number to arise as long as humans and wild animals remain increasingly in contact, and global transportation continues to offer the optimal means of creating a pandemic. Perhaps what is being learned now will help a lot in dealing with another viral threat.
 
Aug 31, 2020
26
4
55
Hi: Nice to hear 9/10 lived, but I must ask, are you sure those who recovered are "none the worse for wear"? Likely not, likely they have permanent lung and other organ damage, leaving them prone to all kinds of future infections.
Aware of those dangers. Happily that does not seem to be the case. Imagine what would happen if herd immunity were the only solution and everyone who contracted covid 19 were permanently scarred. I think it would result in major mutations. In any case the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918 where an exactly similar pandemic took place (a) lasted for two years (b) everyone wore masks (c) everyone maintained social distancing (d)no major genetic changes resulted and (d) schools colleges, theatres and shops were closed for a long period of time. Let's hope this new modern pandemic follows a similar course and does not come up with something new.
 
Sep 6, 2020
14
0
30
Actually there is a very real chance of the virus becoming more lethal.

[snip]

There are a number of ways that the coronavirus can become more lethal. Keep in mind that its cousins, SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV, two very closely related viruses, have 10-30-% mortality rate. There is no way of knowing where this virus is going. Because it has close relative that are much more lethal, the only rational course of action is to try to minimize its spread. By limiting its replication, you reduce its ability to mutate.

* https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/polioviruscontainment/diseaseandvirus.htm
I am not an expert and only base my response on my understanding of what I have read and watched over the years.

I can identfy a virus that arguably has become more leathal, MRSA which is likely the result of mass sterilisation leaving a suitable environment for the hardier forms to survive.
With COVID19 it would likely adapt to infect more people, it is of no benefit for a virus to kill before it reproduces or indeed restrict a host's ability to move in a population; the strains you identify did not circulate well as they were easy to detect and contain.
The current virus is successfully circulating and any mutation would be in competition with an established form preventing it from successfully spreading.

If you look at the common cold, influenza etc... they have existed a very long time yet have not mutated to the point where countries have needed to take action. Yes there have been bad years and mutations that avoid the vaccinations but I do not recall a mutated form substantially reducing a population.
 
Jul 27, 2020
117
5
105
I can identfy a virus that arguably has become more leathal, MRSA which is likely the result of mass sterilisation leaving a suitable environment for the hardier forms to survive.
Please provide some reference to this statement. It is not clear how a "mass sterilization" was involved in a more lethal strain of MRSA. And MRSA is a strain of Staphylococcus aureus , a bacteria. It is unlikely that similar results would be obtained with a virus, but cannot be ruled out. Clearly the "mass sterilization" process was not properly conducted, since nothing would have survived.

With COVID19 it would likely adapt to infect more people, it is of no benefit for a virus to kill before it reproduces or indeed restrict a host's ability to move in a population; the strains you identify did not circulate well as they were easy to detect and contain.
That is correct. The more mutations, the greater the likelihood of more infective forms that could develop. Their ability to displace other strains will depend on more than the mutation. Lock-down and isolation procedures will put a limit on the development and spread of mutant forms, unless these restrictions are lifted. This is all the more reason to limit its spread, and thereby the number of mutations.

If you look at the common cold, influenza etc... they have existed a very long time yet have not mutated to the point where countries have needed to take action.
The "common" influenza virus killed tens of millions of people all over the world from 1918-1919. Once it was understood what was causing the disease (there were no vaccines at that time for anything), containment and isolation procedures decreased the number of fatalities. Experts of this virus are very concerned that a similar mutant could arise. It certainly cannot be ruled out since we have already been there.
 
Ain't no over about none of this, peeps. Just forward.....

Ahh, check this out (although I recall seeing 204k at the main site, Monday....)





@Chem721 : Yah, I could tell you were diggin my speak. Funny you say screwball. Earlier I had this idea of posting a Harlan Ellison-like thread called Turn of the Screw. May still.

 
Last edited:
Sep 23, 2020
22
2
35
Have I misunderstood a lot of the posts are saying the virus is causing the sickness and deaths the way I understood it was the immune systems response to the virus that was to blame someone
Put me straight
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
Jul 27, 2020
117
5
105
Have I misunderstood a lot of the posts are saying the virus is causing the sickness and deaths the way I understood it was the immune systems response to the virus that was to blame someone
Put me straight
Dirt moss, you have asked a really good question, and the answers are not all known. For starters, the virus is likely the cause of all or most of the symptoms that have been reported, it just may not be the direct cause.

This can best be determined by symptoms with people who have been infected with this specific virus, and compared to the symptoms caused by other coronaviruses which usually cause mild coughs and sniffles. The other viruses do not cause the symptoms that are resulting in so much carnage we see today. It is reasonable to assume that this particular virus has very nasty capabilities.

When a virus invades, it hijacks a cell's machines to reproduce itself and infect other cells. If enough of this happens, massive cell death alone can cause major problems. Also upon infection, the immune system reacts, sometimes excessively, creating more problems then the viral invasion. This is an over-response and is believed to be the cause of many problems, especially inflammation - a cytokine storm (1).

The weird stuff is harder to explain, like loss of smell, and strokes and stuff like that. It has been demonstrated (2) that a region of the spike protein can bind to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (NARs), which could cause a number of neurological problems, and impact a number of organs, skin etc.

Loss of the sense of smell could be one of these. Since smell is a direct neurological function, the loss of smell may result from the virus binding to the NARs, invading and killing nerve cells. Sorry, but don't have enough time to go over all the details. It is pretty well established that the virus is to blame for most of the problems people are dealing with when infected..

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm

(2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7461543/
 
Sep 23, 2020
22
2
35
Dirt moss, you have asked a really good question, and the answers are not all known. For starters, the virus is likely the cause of all or most of the symptoms that have been reported, it just may not be the direct cause.

This can best be determined by symptoms with people who have been infected with this specific virus, and compared to the symptoms caused by other coronaviruses which usually cause mild coughs and sniffles. The other viruses do not cause the symptoms that are resulting in so much carnage we see today. It is reasonable to assume that this particular virus has very nasty capabilities.

When a virus invades, it hijacks a cell's machines to reproduce itself and infect other cells. If enough of this happens, massive cell death alone can cause major problems. Also upon infection, the immune system reacts, sometimes excessively, creating more problems then the viral invasion. This is an over-response and is believed to be the cause of many problems, especially inflammation - a cytokine storm (1).

The weird stuff is harder to explain, like loss of smell, and strokes and stuff like that. It has been demonstrated (2) that a region of the spike protein can bind to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (NARs), which could cause a number of neurological problems, and impact a number of organs, skin etc.

Loss of the sense of smell could be one of these. Since smell is a direct neurological function, the loss of smell may result from the virus binding to the NARs, invading and killing nerve cells. Sorry, but don't have enough time to go over all the details. It is pretty well established that the virus is to blame for most of the problems people are dealing with when infected..

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm

(2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7461543/
P
 
Sep 23, 2020
22
2
35
In other words do you think this virus nineteen is a true virus or a bacteria it is my understanding virus don't split and become two virons what are the medical teams saying and the experts
 
Sep 6, 2020
14
0
30
I reiterate that I am not a scientific expert so my answers are what my understanding on a subject is and have over the years changed in line with documentries and papers I have read.

Please provide some reference to this statement. It is not clear how a "mass sterilization" was involved in a more lethal strain of MRSA
Apologies, a mix-up in my mind... resistance to medication that previously was not the case. FOr me it has evolved to become more deadly in that it is resistant to treatments that worked previously.

The "common" influenza virus killed tens of millions of people all over the world from 1918-1919. Once it was understood what was causing the disease (there were no vaccines at that time for anything), containment and isolation procedures decreased the number of fatalities. Experts of this virus are very concerned that a similar mutant could arise. It certainly cannot be ruled out since we have already been there.
Was the 1918-1919 outbreak the result of a new virus that evolved to become more dangerous though?

The question is about mutations to an existing virus in the population to make it more deadly rather than whether a new virus takes hold.
Yes, there will be new strains over the years but I still do not believe that a new strain will evolve to become more dangerous.
 
Sep 6, 2020
14
0
30
Have I misunderstood a lot of the posts are saying the virus is causing the sickness and deaths the way I understood it was the immune systems response to the virus that was to blame someone
Put me straight
Chem721 looks best placed to respond correctly and hopefully can update/ alter my response here to aoid mis-information.

The case study I can think of is AIDS/ HIV.... Essentially you do not die from having the virus (breakthroughs in treatment aside) but it weakens your immune body to the point that easily treatable illness become the killer i.e. you would not be expected to die from pneumonia, but having late-stage HIV/AIDS means you would so although HIV/ AIDS is not responsible for you dieing, having contracted it means that you have.
 
Jul 27, 2020
117
5
105
In other words do you think this virus nineteen is a true virus or a bacteria it is my understanding virus don't split and become two virons what are the medical teams saying and the experts
I am not sure what you mean by this "virus nineteen"?

Viruses do not split like cells. They set up a a unique "factory" in the cells they invade to crank individual new viruses from the host cell's bio-mechanisms.
 
Jul 27, 2020
117
5
105
Was the 1918-1919 outbreak the result of a new virus that evolved to become more dangerous though?
The deadly flu pandemic in 1918-19 was caused by a unique strain of the "standard" influenza virus that is still going around today, and had been going around before the pandemic, for a long time. The first recorded flu pandemic in recorded history was likely 6000 BC in China

To get a good idea about this virus, check out the following link:


and then you can really get into it with this one:



The question is about mutations to an existing virus in the population to make it more deadly rather than whether a new virus takes hold.
Yes, there will be new strains over the years but I still do not believe that a new strain will evolve to become more dangerous.

It is not clearly why some viruses become lethal, and what the mortality rate might be. It would seem as a matter of chance since there is no selective advantage to killing the host.

But some strains of Ebola (i.e. Ebola reston) give rise to minor symptoms, while the primary form, Ebola ebola, has fataility rates up to about 90%:



The case study I can think of is AIDS/ HIV.... Essentially you do not die from having the virus (breakthroughs in treatment aside) but it weakens your immune body to the point that easily treatable illness become the killer i.e. you would not be expected to die from pneumonia, but having late-stage HIV/AIDS means you would so although HIV/ AIDS is not responsible for you dieing, having contracted it means that you have.
Technically, this is true. HIV does not kill you directly. It destroys your ability to fight off other diseases which do kill you, but the cause of death is AIDS, which was initiated by HIV. Most experts would say that HIV was causative.







 

ASK THE COMMUNITY