[Nerissa]

Does it strike anyone odd that Spain and Italy, two of the "healthiest" countries were some of the hardest hit? Why is that do you suppose? I wonder if being so healthy means people don't usually get sick  therefore no herd immunity? Or that they weren't prepared for being not healthy. That's was just a thought.

I expect that in the fullness of time, and after investigation,  clearer explanations will emerge for this, but the obvious one is that society and styles of socialising and living  in Spain and Italy  countries  are quite distinct from many other countries.  There is far more inter familial and inter generational living arrangements and mixing than in Sweden for example, or the Netherlands or The US.  A lot more.   They are also more  tactile than people many other countries.    This social aspect of life has major advantages under normal circumstances , but not right now.

I lived in Singapore during SARS in 2003.  The way they dealt with a less communicable but more deadly respiratory virus was exemplary, but it is an Island/City state of 4 million and the citizens  are very obedient.  We observed many instructions, including writing children’s temperatures in specially made books each morning and sending them to school to be checked.  And they were actually checked daily - it wasn’t just window dressing.  .  Public transport and school buses were disinfected daily;  temperature scanners were at the airport.   people were employed to disinfect lift buttons, door knobs etc.  Tracing contacts and testing and isolating were meticulous. 

I went out very little as I had three small children and was fearful for them but we felt very well protected by a government which was and is hot  on science.  It needed very compliant citizens though, and the small population  probably helped a great deal too as it was easier to keep tabs on them.  There was absolutely no dissent that I recall about following every edict.  It is not a libertarian country and Asia generally is more ‘collective’ than the west in their approach to life.  Had there been dissent, some kind of consequence would have ensued - legal, or community based.

Cultural mores and consequent ways of living and behaving differ enormously  and I think contribute hugely during these events as do economic and intellectual  strengths

[xyzcf]

I wonder if being so healthy means people don't usually get sick  therefore no herd immunity?

COVID 19 was first identified in December 2019. It is a novel virus, one that had previously not been identified anywhere in the world.

You cannot really build up herd immunity to a virus that has never been recognized before in humans.

Nerissa, I was a nurse in Toronto in 2003 during SARS. Quarantine measures were initiated very early on and people compiled. Temperatures were taken and any household or close contacts were immediately put into quarantine.

It seemed to have some kind of effect because the the first case was identified Feb 23 2003 and by June 2003 it was completely gone. It never reappeared. There was no treatment and no vaccine. I am not saying this will happen with COVID but the drastic measures taken in the places where SARS did appear stopped the virus from spreading and eventually it went away.

[lawprofessor]

"The people who have had Covid 19 and have recovered are now immune."

Do we know this?  I'm not certain.  I read an article that in China a reasonably concerning percentage of those who had tested negative after having the virus became re-infected when returned to daily life conditions living among others who were positive. 

Perhaps it was a false negative?  But 20% false negatives would be a huge amount I'd think.

And 1 day is just one day, maybe a blip, maybe an indicator.  But not statistically relevant yet as to the numbers out of New York.  Although, it was a pleasant bit of hope shined in a sea of bad news.

Coming from a country with stricter ideas of what the well being of people is defined as, I find the sacrifices I am asked to make, to be a small price to pay.  Too much the focus in the US is individual rights in this situation, forgetting that but for the grace of God, go I.  In other countries we are not asked to stay home, we are told.  If you violate the order, you're not given kudos by a bunch of others, and if sickened by your own actions you cannot later scream for help from the government or hospitals.  You pay the price.  The focus isn't on right to do an activity but on duty to help others.  It's sad the people who assert their rights at the possible expense of others health.  I don't find it to be a very mature way of thinking or conducting one's self frankly. 

I found the article and talk of herd immunity unpersuasive and poorly argued.  We did not use herd immunity in other situations.  Polio and TB for example that I am aware of?  Why would we embrace it in this situation?

Lp

[Milly]

Good point, LP.

The number of dead from the coronavirus are not the same as your average flu. Nor do hospitals find every winter that their ICU units are not enough to cope with those seriously ill to the point that they have to decide between one patient and the other. This is happening in all countries affected by the coronavirus.

There are several reasons why Italy might have had such high numbers, one of them being they were the first in the Western world to deal with this pandemic. Italy's numbers might not be the worst once this virus goes around the world.

Whether the virus is no 'worse' than the common flu has no relevance to the coronavirus, because this one is 2.5 times more contagious than any normal flu. This is the problem. Because of the high number of serious cases at once, the medical staff are getting it and dying of it, too. These are people we need to help all our sick with normal critical conditions such as strokes, accidents, heart attacks, cancer, clots, bronchial asthma, I could go on.....

Two months staying inside for everyone's benefit including our own is not a violation of our freedom as far as I'm concerned, it's a responsible act. Where the countries were very strict like Singapore, the death rate has been much lower. To me that is something to be grateful for.

To me being told to stay inside until this virus is over is the same as saying don't go swimming when there is high tide. That wouldn't feel like a violation of my freedom. It's protection.

[Thunder]

"Two months staying inside for everyone's benefit including our own is not a violation of our freedom as far as I'm concerned, it's a responsible act."

Thank you, Milly.  I so agree with you, now if we could just get our president on board and stop allowing state governors to make that decision.

We need stronger leadership in the US.  Not someone who is concerned about poll numbers, or getting reelected.

Do what is best for the American people.  That is your job.

[marvin4242]

LP: agree that staying inside is a minor inconvenience and that we need to be more focus on our obligations and relationships to others rather than just “me.”

But the concept of herd immunity is not controversial and Covid-19 is a variant of a class of viruses that are relatively well understood. Obviously like anything else, specially in science, there are no absolute answers until and even now there is data being collected. But something as simple as being re-infected would require a significant mutation or multiple varied strains of the same virus, and there have been many variants already sequenced and the virus actually seems to relatively stable. This would mean that immune response will not be fooled until and unless there is more changes. In a rapidly changing virus this would happen in short period of time in a population but nothing so far shows this about Covid-19. Also it is good to ignore small number reports of an event. First the first few are now relatively sure to have been testing error, and if the virus really was able to reinfect you would see a very large rate of disease returning to those who had it. It would not be subtle.

We have always had herd immunity in the past. Unfortunately before vaccinations it took the form of significant percentages of people dying out in high mortality rate diseases (and Covid-19 is not high mortality, not downplaying the deaths just a numerical fact), leaving behind the ones with immunity whether they got sick or managed to fight it off. Also Covid-19 is not a very strong vector, it has a large spread but most people show no symptoms either because their immune system fights it off or it is not damaging enough to them. That doesn’t mean that if its not harming the person it is still not a spread vector. Which in an ironic way makes it spread more easily, a deadly disease will incapacitate a person and they don’t tend to be as efficient as a spread vector.

And in case of far deadlier diseases we would need to do everything possible to prevent spread, much more than we are now. I guess this is the main thing that puzzles me: this is not a virulent disease on the scale of things. If it was a virus with 30% mortality and people reacted this way they would be mass deaths in the US. Imagine the behaviour of people and talks of “grandmothers would die so their kids futures are not economically damaged” and “rights” if 30% of people who contracted a disease would die.  Because if the number of non symptomatic people holds up (sometimes up to 50%) the final death rate of this disease may fall well before 1% (around 0.5%) by the time we have all the data.

[Milly]

Thank you for the scientific explanations, Marvin.

[lawprofessor]

Thank you for the explanation Marvin.  I suppose I have an in-born distrust of government numbers coming from a country that is notorious for being untruthful with its statistics on everything from production to births to crime to income to illnesses.

I wouldn't say I find herd immunity controversial, simply that it seems an outdated approach to a pandemic such as this where so much is unknown and unproven.  I would have hoped that in a country that claims to be great, the best of the best, strongest, with a great healthcare system, herd immunity would not be suggested as a solution to a pandemic except as a last resort.  To be told or have a large number of people seem to suggest that economic health and the right to do non-essential hobby activities as we please is as important as physical health and giving others less fortunate a better chance to live seems like a de-evolution rather than proof of greatness. 

To me, it smacks of an immaturity and self-centeredness that also gave birth to MLC and the societal acceptance of those behaviors.  I question if on one hand one can carp on about individual rights to do as one pleases for hobby activities that increase our ever widening definition of well being while at the same time railing on about spouses who are asserting that they must do MLC activities in order to fulfill their newly widened definition of well being. 

Lp

[lawprofessor]

Oh, I forgot to ask, did anyone read the news story about the Tiger in the Bronx zoo that caught the virus from an infected worker? 

Don't forget to protect your pets ladies and gentlemen! 

Lp

[UrsaMajor]

Oh, I forgot to ask, did anyone read the news story about the Tiger in the Bronx zoo that caught the virus from an infected worker? 

Don't forget to protect your pets ladies and gentlemen! 

Lp

From the article I read this morning, 6 of them are now sick there, the original tiger and all her "pen mates." First known animal infection in the  US and first known transfer from human to animal...