I think social distancing does "eliminate" cases of covid 19...check my logic and give input

No. Social Distancing increases the number of cases. Herd immunity is achieved at 60% if done quickly but everyone get exposed if the disease is allowed to linger for 2 years.

Epi the Demiology wrote:

No. Social Distancing increases the number of cases. Herd immunity is achieved at 60% if done quickly but everyone get exposed if the disease is allowed to linger for 2 years.

Please explain how you think immunity works? I’m not sure how you could so be so wrong.

Herd immunity at 60% would still be hit over an extended time. If you let people interact it would hit 60% infected before people have time to develop antibodies (may take 3-5 weeks or more) and they would end up infecting fat more than the 60% req’d for herd immunity and overwhelm health care systems. Also, there’s a chance higher levels of exposure make it more dangerous so if you have lots of infected people exposure will be higher potentially increasing severity

Those 5 cases have been delayed, not avoided or eliminated, in a large population that does not have a vaccine/cure. The probability is that they are exposed some time later. If the goal is to delay exposure, social distancing clearly works, although to what extent depends on the amount of social distancing.

Epi the Demiology wrote:

No. Social Distancing increases the number of cases. Herd immunity is achieved at 60% if done quickly but everyone get exposed if the disease is allowed to linger for 2 years.

You misunderstand "herd immunity," which enabled you to make the statement that "Social Distancing increases the number of case" which is too stupid to even comment on.

Herd immunity is not a cure and does not eliminate a virus - everyone still gets exposed. But when a certain percentage of the public builds a degree of immunity, the transmission rate drops, which can eliminate problems with scarcity of hospital resources. And the medical problem can become one of localized outbreaks, rather than epidemic.

But no one of any credibility has ever suggested decreasing the time to herd immunity. That would be absolutely insane in a deadly pandemic - worse than doing nothing at all. How the F would you even do it? Force everyone into barns and arenas at gunpoint and tell them to stay for a few days?

at best, social distancing will allow 1% - or some ridiculously low number - of the population to avoid the virus.

i'm fairly certain this virus is easily transmitted/contagious to people. whether it causes enough of an issue for people to seek help, or if the doctors determine it warrants any testing for confirmation is another story.

i don't have any numbers to back any of my assertions, so keep that in mind. these are merely my thoughts.

Epi the Demiology wrote:

No. Social Distancing increases the number of cases. Herd immunity is achieved at 60% if done quickly but everyone get exposed if the disease is allowed to linger for 2 years.

This is completely wrong.

Of course social distancing can reduce the total number of cases.

The idea isn't necessarily to create herd immunity, but to let those with the infection to recover WITHOUT giving it to others.

Limit number of cases, and reduce likelihood of over saturating the hospitals.

Be like Olivia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZrjuPXnu5I

Fun simulations where you can kind of see how social distancing etc works. Worth two minutes of your time if you want to understand it better.

he is wrong though wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/

Fun simulations where you can kind of see how social distancing etc works. Worth two minutes of your time if you want to understand it better.

that is a really good resource, but it fails to include the characteristic of the virus, whether it's the rate of transmission, minimum dosage for infection, half-life, etc.

social distancing does help, but this virus doesn't show symptoms in people until they've had it for about 5 days - if they even show symptoms in the first place.

its a really good virus, in the sense that it does its job well.

Social distancing and any other stupid maneuvers of stupid governments can never eliminate a pandemic.

The only thing that eliminates a pandemic is more and more people getting infected and developing antibodies. This happens every year with seasonal flu, and this is the only solution to the corona which is no more than a weak flu.

The only way to eliminate a pandemic by social distancing is by isolating the whole humanity of the world simultaneously and send each individual to live alone on a desert island for two or three weeks. And then go back together, and even then it is enough for one man to still have it, and then you would have 2 and 4 and 8’and 16 and 32 and 64 and 128.....you digg how stupid and ignorant is the idea of isolating healthy people?

That’s perfect assuming their is 6 people on earth and they never leave to get groceries or receive a package, etc. if it were that simple, when everyone started staying at home we would have 0 new cases.

:D wrote:

that is a really good resource, but it fails to include the characteristic of the virus, whether it's the rate of transmission, minimum dosage for infection, half-life, etc.

social distancing does help, but this virus doesn't show symptoms in people until they've had it for about 5 days - if they even show symptoms in the first place.

its a really good virus, in the sense that it does its job well.

Yep, that’s why they don’t include a specific ‘time’ on the bottom.

Infection rate will determine what percent ‘recovered’ you need for herd immunity and is determined by dosage required for transmission.

How long it takes to recover is the big factor in how long quarantine/extreme distancing is needed, and obviously asymptotic carriers are why everyone needs to distance.

Not only can you cut the number of eventually affected from 100% to maybe 60%, but you can also greatly reduce the level of exposure which I suspect improves survival rate (this isn’t proven for this virus but I have a hunch it’s the case).

Obviously, it’s tough to set up an experiment for morality reasons, but the article below explores it a bit.

Ggggg wrote:

And then go back together, and even then it is enough for one man to still have it, and then you would have 2 and 4 and 8’and 16 and 32 and 64 and 128.....you digg how stupid and ignorant is the idea of isolating healthy people?

The big factor you don’t account for is that at some point (relatively early) the doubling can’t continue.

First person will get 2, those 2 could get 4, those 4 might only infect 7 because one person might have immunity already. Now those 7 might only infect 12 because even more are now immune and people are more likely to interact with the same vs new people... at some point (~ 50% infected) they would be more likely to infect fewer people eventually the infected people wouldn’t see any susceptible people.

This is when you hit ‘herd immunity.’ Depending how easily spread a disease is it could be very low or it could 95% plus. But minimizing interactions lowers the threshold for herd immunity.

The CDC's position as of today is that asymptomatic people may spread the virus! That's very different then the position of the top experts the last three weeks. What that means is social distancing has made the situation worse! Even though the wave is flattening that could be due to the change of season, not social distancing. If we did nothing a month ago this virus could be gone by now.

Unless you are an actual epidemiologist I honestly don’t care about your opinions of this.

seryywe wrote:

The CDC's position as of today is that asymptomatic people may spread the virus! That's very different then the position of the top experts the last three weeks. What that means is social distancing has made the situation worse! Even though the wave is flattening that could be due to the change of season, not social distancing. If we did nothing a month ago this virus could be gone by now.

There is nothing remotely true in this post. They’ve been saying asymptomatic could spread for months. That’s the whole reason they told people to socially distance was because you could spread w/o symptoms.

Plus how do you get from that information to social distancing making it worse?

You started with a false premise, made an odd claim not even supported by your false premise, made another unsupported claim and then another conclusion supported by none of your claims which even if they weren’t false, still don’t lead to your conclusion.

Hiding in your house and only going out for gas and groceries and takeout and to go to the bank and to go for a run while still getting Amazon deliveries and grocery deliveries and fast food deliveries, will not magically hide you from the virus.

It's everywhere

It's on everything

You probably already have it

Social distancing is a joke

https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/charlotte-woman-hasnt-left-her-house-in-three-weeks-but-tested-positive-for-covid-19/275-77707b1d-fd2f-4a36-bf3e-16beca4104c4

My girlfriend can’t give me her input due to the 6 foot rule.

Facts Matter? wrote:

Hiding in your house and only going out for gas and groceries and takeout and to go to the bank and to go for a run while still getting Amazon deliveries and grocery deliveries and fast food deliveries, will not magically hide you from the virus.

It can’t live for long on things, did you miss the part in the story where her groceries were delivered by someone with the virus? It’s an airborne virus, you really think being face to face with the grocery delivery lady was a good idea?