Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2020 AFPExperts slam 'dangerous fallacy' of virus herd immunity
By Patrick GALEY PARIS©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
Articles, Offers & Useful Resources
A mix of what's trending on our other sites
41 Comments
Login to comment
virusrex
To be clear, "herd immunity" by itself is not a fallacy. Saying that rampant spreading as a safe way to achieve it is the one that lacks logic.
Every country is pursuing herd immunity. The moment the infection became a pandemic the other path (eradication by completely stopping new infections) became realistically impossible. The important part is understanding that this is to be done either by controlling the spreading to a slow crawl that can be managed without unnecessary loss of lives (but that requires also putting a big brake to the economy) or by developing effective and safe vaccines or treatments that eliminate the risk of complication.
virusrex
All of them? in the world? not realistic, just magical thinking.
When your only argument is a hidden conspiracy to control every single association of professionals in the world you may as well just say you don't have any argument. It may surprise you, but nobody has that kind of money.
And yet you keep offering none, just "a number of them" as if that was some kind of reference, not a single scientific paper with well described methods and a complete discussion of the contradicting evidence, just "some people" that are incapable of convincing any of the literally thousands of associations of medical professionals in the world, because apparently two persons can fund them all and their research with trillions of dollars per year. And every single one of those associations decides what to do exclusively because of that money. Even if they and their family and friends lose much more by those measures that supposedly are totally unnecessary. Sorry, that does not make any sense. In the age of preprints there is no excuse to say scientific information is controlled.
Jimizo
Links, please.
When you are using ‘many’, do these experts represent a majority view?
Your posts seem to indicate that you will seize upon anything which can help you along with the tiresome conspiracy theory about vaccines.
Jimizo
Don’t any of these experts write any papers or articles we can view? Surely there must be one or two.
My mind doesn’t automatically jump to the conspiracy theory. I’m not wired that way.
Links would be nice.
virusrex
People that don't understand science or logic tend to think on fantastic absolute terms, and make mistakes because of that.
It is completely possible to become reinfected with COVID-19, the same as with every other infectious disease, there is nothing deceptive about that.
One, because vaccines are a safe and effective health intervention that improved the life of all humans, so rational people expect this story of improvement to involve the pandemic also. It would be the normal situation.
Two, because nameless people without data are not worth of attention. You keep mentioning these imaginary experts but not even once you can reference their views expressed scientifically, as in a structured, systematic manuscript, the minimum required to take their view with even a hint of seriousness.
No, that is just an imaginary conspiracy theory, that would require a thousand bill gates to dedicate their whole fortune.
Reality is that your beliefs are not supported by evidence, and many times are actually debunked by evidence, there is no need for any agenda to say that false things are false. It just requires being intellectually honest.
I have heard many sociologists and psychologists that have proved that when people keep basing their arguments in the non-existent authority of nameless people that only them can see 100% of the time there are no such things, the sociologists have published over 100 papers about it, so it is true.
Yes, people that are obsessed with a twisted view of the world are unable to accept reality, even if proved with mountains of evidence. They can't see, because it would decrease their value in their own eyes. It does not matter how irrational their beliefs are, many times they even resort to imaginary authority figures.
virusrex
That is the thing, the expert's opinion is that the only way to reliably avoid overwhelming hospitals and protect the most vulnerable people is NOT to let the virus spread freely. They have the experience and data to prove it.
Who are those experts? what are they experts in? and most importantly, on what evidence do they base their opinion and how do they discuss that the scientific consensus is on the opposite direction?
I mean, "a number of experts" will say absolutely everything, that the moon is made of cheese or that vitamins are the ones that make people catch COVID-19, after all "0" is a number, or they could be experts in folding toilet paper.
How about one full association of professionals that have anything to do with infectious diseases, epidemy control or public health management? After all, its not like not even one of those organizations supports "free spreading" is it?
False dichotomy, lockdowns are not the only way to prevent the spreading of the pandemic, there are many kinds of measures and many kinds of degrees for each.
Alternative views are not the problem, unsubstantiated or demonstrably false views are, there is no other thing to do with people that propose anti-scientific measures just because they like them (or because some supposed experts without any data, nor names, say it). Valid, scientific, objective opinions well founded with reliable data and that do not depend on hidden conspiracies impossible to prove, are recognized easily as part of the conversation, it is just not coincidence that "free spreading" is not part of them.
Desert Tortoise
Here is some simple arithmetic for Raw Beer and those of like mind. There are 330 million people in the United States. To approach herd immunity at least 70% of that 330 million people would have to have had been infected by Covid-19 and thus have anitbodies. That means 231 million Covid-19 cases. At least 1% of Covid-19 infections result in death. In some places the rate is higher than this but for the sake of keeping the arithmetic simple and non controversial we will stick with a conservative number. So 1% of those 231 million infections lead to death. That means at least 2,310,000, 2.31 million Americans, will die from Covid-19 before herd immunity is achieved. That is what your advocacy of herd immunity achieves. Lots of dead Americans, a number that rates as genocide. Worse still there is no guarantee any immunity achieved is lasting. All those deaths could be for naught. The virus is still too new to have any data to support the claim that there can be long lasting immunity achieved from an infection. But because too many on the right are ignorant of science as well as lazy and selfish there will be needless death and suffering in the US. The right would rather see over 2 million dead than wear a mask and put off going to a ball game or dining out in a restaurant. it's all about me and to hades with everyone else. I got my rights, never mind rights come with some obligations. The right will never talk about that.
WilliamJames
Herd immunity requires that at least 60% of a population become infected. In the US that is a little more that 200 million people. And, by the way. 60% is a conservative number. The current death rate in the US is 2.87. So, let's assume it's 1.0 since actual infections are much higher. That says 2 MILLION PEOPLE will die. A virtual crime against humanity by the Trump presidency.
Herd immunity is usually discussed when a vaccine exits. So, for measles where immunity is lifelong, 80% or so of the population being vaccinated guarantees that those who cannot be vaccinated because of compromised immune systems can safely go to school, etc ... Other examples are polio, smallpox, and chicken pox.
Flu vaccines as well as one for SARS-CoV-2 when it arrives after completed phase-3 trials and verification only give seasonal protection, and as is well known, do not prevent reinfections.
With respect to Sweden the government itself admitted that too many people died. Denmark just next door successfully implemented the necessary restrictions to flatten the curves while minimizing deaths.
Remember: Economies always come back even when obliterated as in 1929 and 2008. The dead NEVER COME BACK.
Please a little compassion for others and the vulnerable. SARS-CoV-2 is devastating often will serious long timer after effects.
Wear a mask. The life you save may be your own.
Strangerland
NZ’s economy has not collapsed. Neither has Australia’s.
Seapig
@Zaphod
There are many different predictions of the actual death rate as different countries try different methods of controlling the virus. Your idea that the actual rate is at least ten times lower than the currently accepted rate of 1% however isn’t backed up by the actual data. A 0.1% death rate would mean that a bit over 200,000 Americans would die before herd immunity was achieved. First there is no guarantee that immunity is lasting, second more that 200,000 Americans have already died as a result of the virus, and third both infections and deaths are increasing. The death rate of the corona virus has already far exceeded the flu death rate which can be confirmed by looking at the “excess deaths”. Based on this actual data it does appear the death rate will approach the 1% mark.
Of course you’re welcome the interpret statistics anyway you want to fit your narrative but I hope most base there views on the actual data available.
Peter Neil
I'd say the problem lies in the numbers. The US average IQ of 98 versus 108 for Hong Kong, Singapore, 105 for China, Japan, Korea, and staying above 101 for Taiwan, Iceland, Switzerland, blah, blah, blah...
So at an average IQ of 98 and a population of 330,000,000, the US has almost 90,000,000 people below 90 IQ.
That's a lot of people who don't understand stuff very well. And how some people get elected . . .
Oh, and 65% of Americans say that they are above average IQ. And apparently 85% think that they are above average drivers.
This supports the findings that the US is ranked 38th in math.
Desert Tortoise
I highly recommend American conservatives to strive for herd immunity as their political, cough cough, "leadership" advocates. The sooner the better too.
Desert Tortoise
No. Cases indicate infections and infections in Sweden are rising sharply the last two weeks. Deaths lag infection by two weeks to a month. Your analysis is defective.
https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/se
virusrex
Some of the people recovered still have reactive cellular immunity, not all of them. And the very important caveat is that those people were extremely symptomatic, we don't have information about cellular immunity from asymptomatic patients of COVID-19, only from a subgroup of patients that had heavy complications and vaccine volunteers. Your suspicions are biased towards what you want to believe, sustain them with real scientific data or else they are as real as the "numerous" virologists that have no name nor data or the imaginary career as a molecular biologist that some people pretend to have.
Which, as demonstrated by science requires either strict control of the spreading, a safe and effective vaccine or a completely effective treatment that eliminates the risk of complication even on patients with comorbidities, at this point there is no evidence that unrestricted spreading can avoid as much unnecessary deaths and complications as the real 3 options there are.
There is one thing worse than being ignorant of science, and that is being a denialist of science. A layman has no duty to know the science, but knowing it and use incomplete, misleading or false information to pretend it says the opposite of what actually is the consensus has no excuse.
virusrex
Could not find any scientific article where they properly discuss and defend with evidence the unrestricted spreading as a safe and effective way to achieve herd immunity. Only opinions where very specific, and strong measures of control are still recommended (just not full economic lockdowns) on one part, and opinions extrapolating from other infectious diseases and vaccines (still without proper statistical analysis to assess their value) for the other.
Again, full universal lockdown vs no measures whatsoever for the general population is a false dichotomy, and a proper discussion worth of evaluation requires a scientific report. Credentials are important only in the sense that they lets us expect a properly defended argument (with referenced data, a well described methodology and conclusions that include any contradicting argument). This is not something we can get from Youtube or Twitter.
virusrex
Because that is the default for SARS infection, enough so people with faint or no symptoms are rare enough to be described in case reports like PMC3035549, DPMC7108013 and papers that examine persistance of T-cell activity do it on people that recovered from hospitalization of SARS PMC7115611. There is no need for special selection, SARS do not produce easily asymptomatic infection, so any of such cases being researched specify it because it is the opposite from the normal assumption. Its like "selecting" symptomatic people that got Ebola.
Which is again not the same as being immune, that is why the cells are described as reactive, but the process is not described as neutralizing. For that more evidence is required.
It should be clear, determination of one single kind of immunity is just a surrogate, it is not the same as being protected. Humoral immunity is the same. For example you can have huge amounts of antibodies against dengue, but if those cause antibody dependent enhancement that still means you will get sick and develop hemorrhagic dengue instead of just the fever.
Its the difference between saying you have antivirus in your computer and saying you are completely protected.
Which is exactly what the later phases of clinical trials do. In this case vaccines that finish such phase by definition have that evidence, people that have reactive T-cells in absence of exposure do not, after they are studied you can say they are protected (if they are) until now that is still only a possibility.
Which is exactly why the animal test are done, because thinking that seeing a small window about immunity will let you predict exactly what will happen is deeply antiscientific. So scientists test it and corroborate that there is no problem.
In this case again vaccine have the advantage of having examined this and eliminate it as a realistic risk from the preclinical trials. Which is easily explained by the specific reactivity elicited by the vaccines that mimic exposure to the SARS-CoV-2, different from what is observed on naïve patients.
virusrex
That is unrelated, can it be proved that a person is actively trying to ignore the science and instead trying to mislead with invalid conclusions? then it can be accused without problem of being a denialist. The person is not ignorant of science, it is trying his best to misrepresent it. There is nothing political nor religious about it, it is simply true.
Nobody is talking about settling absolutely everything about the pandemic, but there are many things that are without problem understood well enough to say there is a consensus, nothing is ever absolutely decided in science, that is not what consensus means, what it means is that there is enough data for a vast majority of the professionals to share the same conclusions.
Of course some things will turn out false, that is what happens with something that is not completely known, but that does not mean that there was no consensus it only means that more information was necessary, not that people with invalid conclusions based on no data (or faulty data) magically have more of a chance of being right.
You don't understand what the fallacy of strawman means, you are using it incorrectly. What is the argument that I supposedly said you sustain? there is no such thing.
You are replying to a request for scientific papers, articles for dissenters to the consensus to explain scientifically why their opinion is valid (as in supported by data). You reply with names, I could not find what was asked with such bad reference, so your response is invalid, it does not bring what is the least necessary evidence to the experts seriously, Even, one of the experts expresses precisely the contrary to your point. Either you just put some names without even checking what was their opinion or you could not understand what they said. That is why is so important to ask for scientific papers, maybe all the experts you think support your opinion are actually doing the opposite, you just could not notice it.
virusrex
But to be clear again, those patients are a selection of cases that have this reactivity, not all of the patients that got SARS have this until now. And also all the SARS patients included were heavily symptomatic, so that still says nothing about the immunity for the vast mayority of COVID-19 patients that are never hospitalized. It is still completely possible that only people that required hospitalization have long lasting immunity.
No, that is an unsubstantiated conclusion, many people have reactive cellular immunity against the virus, but that is not the same to be immune. It does indicate some degree of immunity but nobody knows how much nor how effective it is to prevent complications (it may actually work increasing the risk of complications), specially because it targets very different proteins compared with the people that did got COVID-19.
To say those people are protected it is needed to study whether the people with reactive cells show lower rates of complications and death after infection. Until then you can only say they MAY be protected.
Desert Tortoise
Sigh. Dreamland. Wishful thinking. ROs for the US range from 2.2 to 4.7. RO depends on how infectious the disease is and how frequently and closely people interact. The percentage of the population that has to be infected to achieve herd immunity is 1-1/RO. That gives a range of 54% on the low end to over 78%. Out of a population of 330 million that works out to 178 million to as high as 260 million. The percent who die of a confirmed infection rises as total infections rise and falls as total infections fall. They track very closely. It is harder to save people when hospitals are overwhelmed. The death rate from infection in the US has ranged from .9% to as low as .3% in the US, averaging .6%. At the very low end then .6% of 178 million is 1.07 million people. .6% of 260 million people is 1.56 m. Do you expect over one million Americans to die for the sake of some ideological idiocy? Would you be able to tell the family of someone who dies that your silly idea is justified? Oh, your loved one had to die so I could get a haircut and have a beer in a bar.
Strangerland
Only someone deluded with privilege is pushing for herd immunity without a vaccine. Ask around - someone in your circle is immune compromised somehow. You’re saying we should sacrifice that person so you can sit in a restaurant without a mask. Oh, and your face won’t be discomforted either. Who cares about that person you know.
These people clearly never knew anyone who died of cancer.
Desert Tortoise
Btw, if you look at CDC data for the US, when the first big spike of Covid-19 happened the RO the death rate per infection was up around 0.9%. Death rates in the US rise and fall with infection rates, meaning as the number of infections grows, the number of deaths per infection also rise. Overwhelmed hospitals can't save as many people when the number of infections increases. Allowing the virus to rage unchecked to achieve herd immunity therefore means that not only do infections per 1 million increase, but deaths per infection also increase from where the nation is now. That is the recipe for 2 million or more dead Americans, just so some people can dine out and go to a ball game. Adult self restraint people. For the next 18 months you are going to have to give some things up so your neighbor, your relatives and the people you work with are not put at risk of serious illness or death. It is not too much to ask unless you are incapable of self control. In WWII your parents and grandparents gave up a lot more. Much of what you bought was strictly rationed and there were no new consumer durables . Gasoline, tires, sugar, milk, some women's garments were rationed. Today's self absorbed right wing would never have won that war.
Wolfpack
The Federal government cannot mandate tight or loose controls on the people in order to control the epidemic. That is the responsibility of the States.
Zaphod
Virusrex
There is one thing that shows we are talking about religious-political bias and not science is, and that is when one side accuses the other of being "denialists".
This epidemic is not settled science with a broad consensus yet. There are experts on all sides of the issue how to approach it, some motivated by particular interests, and many "reputable" original predictions have been shown false. The best thing we can do is listen to several sides, and not just the one narrative promoted by the mainstream media and Big Tech.
Zaphod
virusrex
...and neither do they. Why do we have to make up strawmen?
rdemers
The virus herd immunity works well in China. They have the lowest infection rate. Oh wait, maybe it's because they have the antidote...
Raw Beer
I forgot to mention that the memory lymphocytes from those who recovered from the 1st SARS CoV (17 years ago) also reacted to the N protein of SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
The article also mentions the following:
So many of us are already immune to this virus and we don't know it. It would be great to know who is already immune so we don't need to take any risks with vaccines...
Raw Beer
The paper just says that they got samples from 23 people who recovered from SARS-CoV 17 years ago. All of those samples reacted. Where did you get the information that they selected for those who had been heavily symptomatic?
And don't forget:
"We also detected SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in individuals with no history of SARS, COVID-19 or contact with individuals who had SARS and/or COVID-19 (**n = 37)"**
It isn't? What is the difference?
I guess the same is true for vaccines. We will only know if vaccines are effective once they show that vaccinated people get less complications and death after infect than recovered people upon reinfection!
Oh, you mean like those previous vaccine candidates that seemed very promising in animal studies but that ended up causing deadly overreactions upon infection.
Zaphod
Jimizo
Just off the cuff: John P.A. Ioannidis, Stanford University, or Sucharit Bhakdi, University of Mainz, Germany. Both epidemologists with credentials vastly superior to the censors at Youtube or Twitter who try to muffle them.
Both highly critical of the extreme authoritarian measures taken by many governments. Swedens Tegnell too is quite a bit more qualified to talk on the topic than the talking heads at the MSM programs. And I don´t know what "conspiracy theory" has to do with anything. When I see censorship, I am guilty of a "conspiracy" to call it out?
Raw Beer
When doing arithmetic, you have to make sure you're starting off with the correct numbers. However, not everyone has the ability to do that; see Peter Neil's post.
The infection fatality rate for Covid-19 is around 0.23% overall, as inferred from seroprevalence data. For people below 70, the number drops to around 0.05%.
There is no guarantee that we will ever get a safe and effective vaccine. So you want to keep the vulnerable people locked up for ever?
Anyway, as I mentioned many times, those who recovered from the 1st SARS CoV (17 years ago) still have the memory lymphocytes that would protect them from a second attack. I suspect it will also be the case for SARSCoV2.
So, I'm not the one that is "ignorant of science" and it is our avoidance of herd immunity that will lead to needless death and suffering.
Zaphod
That is not an argument against herd immunity, which exists and will be achieved anyway. That is an argument for flattening the curve, i.e. avoiding to overload hospital capacity. I don´t think anybody has disagreed with that concept ever. The disagreement is about keeping these extreme lockdowns for extended periods, destroying peoples livelyhoods in the process.
The article headline is misleading.
Zaphod
Farmboy:
"Cases" have been somewhat rising in Sweden, whatever that means. However "cases" simply reflect testing, so it is a pretty irrelevant number. The death rate in Sweden has been completely flat since July, practically at zero. And the hospitals are not overloaded. So what is your point in bringing up Sweden?
Zaphod
Desert Tortois
Ah, the good old "1%" fake math. Here is an article that addresses that. Please read it:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/500000-covid19-math-mistake-panic/
Zaphod
Desert Tortoise
False. There is no link between "cases" and "deaths", as "cases" only reflect testing, and not the actual number of infection. And ironically, your suggested link between "cases" and "deaths" does not show up at all in the two charts on your link, conveniently posted one below the other. Look again. There NO spike in deaths following two weeks or a month after the spike in cases. Look at your link again.
Zaphod
WilliamJames
How do you arrive at those wild numbers? I addressed the "1%" fallacy a few messages above.
A destroyed economy kills more people than any Coronavirus can. How do you want to pay for hospital treatment when you have no income and hospitals are bankrupt? The "economy" is not something exists separately from real life.
Read about life in 1929 before wishing it on us.
Raw Beer
Oh, you mean the ones that must toe the line in order to continue receiving funding from Fauci and Gates?
There are plenty of "valid, scientific, objective opinions well founded with reliable data" out there that are not expressed by professional associations.
Raw Beer
This deceptive article mentions the views of some health experts, mentioning that "it is possible to become reinfected with COVID-19" (yeah 5 or a dozen cases world wide so far).
Oh, I see, they are pushing the vaccines again! Why do we have so many articles pushing the "thank God for the vaccines" narratives, and no articles that honestly represent the views of the many experts that are promoting the herd immunity narrative, which is not a "dangerous fallacy devoid of scientific proof".
What we have here is an official narrative from people that have certain agendas. This narrative is supported by massive funding and the MSM, which promote that narrative and censor or attack anyone that does not toe the line.
Raw Beer
I happen to think that we should, while protecting the most vulnerable, let the virus spread freely as long as the hospitals are not overwhelmed. I particularly think this should have been done this summer, when people are less susceptible (warmth, humidity, vitamin D...). And there are a number of experts who say similar things, talking about a safe spread. I think lockdowns have caused more damage than good, and are probably at least partly associated with the coming reset.
If a truly safe and effective vaccine becomes available, great. But we should not put all our hopes into it.
Also, I really hate this constant stream of articles slamming those who offer alternative views. I get very suspicious when they try too hard to control the narrative
Raw Beer
Yeah, I have heard many virologists talking about this, as well as doctors treating covid19 patients, and other scientists analyzing the various Covid19 stats. On the MSM, we never get an honest representation of these views, instead we get the same constant nonsense repeated almost daily. I can't see how this could be anything but intentional disinformation, partly to sell vaccines, partly to inconvenience as many of us as possible perhaps to get most of us to accept their solutions, including the reset.