Hacker News Reader

Comment by tghw | Hacker News Reader

NYC had only 20% prevalence in mid-June[1], after they had contained the initial outbreak[2]. Therefore, the drop in new cases is very unlikely to be from herd immunity, which would need prevalence to be in the 80% range.

The author seems to ignore that most people are interacting with far fewer people because they are working from home, kids mostly aren't in school, and our other interactions with people outside our household have been limited and altered to decrease the chances of transmission.

It's nice to think that some people had memory T-cells that could deal with the virus, and it seems some people do, but based on the original R0 numbers, it would be foolish to think that is the case for enough of the population to conclude that we've reached herd immunity.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/comm...

[2] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases-50-states/new-yor...

View on HN

The theory was that some large percentage of population is either immune or at least significantly more resistant to covid. Do once the initial 20% get it the other 50-% are resistant so you get your 70% number that way

Barring concrete evidence that is the case, it's a very dangerous assertion to make. It would also mean that the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 is much higher than we originally thought, amongst those without "natural immunity".

Even if it were the case that half the population was naturally immune, we would want to understand why. The leading explanation at the moment is T-cells and previous exposure to other coronaviruses. Problem is, there's a good chance that previous exposures would be less likely in certain populations, like children, which could be especially problematic as we're debating sending kids back to school.

At the very least, we need more data on T-cell prevalence/reactance to SARS-CoV-2 before we can jump to the conclusion that people are already immune.

But right now, it's far more likely that we've seen drops because of the drastic measures that have been taken and the changes in daily behavior across the population.

We already know that the virus is harmless to children. No need to grasp at straws to pretend that our collective hysteria was necessary.

While kids are less likely to get sick from it (less likely doesn't mean zero cases or even deaths btw), they can sure as hell spread it. There was some research suggesting that they're spreading the virus as much as (or not detectably less than) adults [1]. Yet at the same time, there are also some indications that kids might be less likely to become infected [2]. How that will affect school reopenings is anyone's guess.

[1]: https://zoonosen.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/microsites... [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0962-9

Less likely doesn't mean zero cases, but non-zero doesn't mean non-neglible either.

It's still a stretch to say that the virus is "harmless" to children.

But that's beside the point. The real point about children is that they can spread the virus just as well, even when they don't get sick - especially since it's also really hard for at least smaller children to keep distance or wear masks.

And cruel, almost as cruel as withholding their education from them and forcing them to social distance.

You continue to miss the point but ok.

This "point" about children is not about children at all. It's about scared, egoistic adults willing to sacrifice children's welfare for their own.

You might want to read this one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/leahrosenbaum/2020/08/19/why-t-...

I read that and I find it pretty infuriating. It has a lot of fake and unsubstantiated science claims by the author.

Also, the JHU map is a poor indicator, as they are clearly basing the colors on suspect data, as in this case in Nebraska, which apparently had negative new cases yesterday.

[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/uakm0cfgn2hv94r/Nebraska.png?dl=0

Oh sometimes that happens because states make mistakes in reporting and want to correct them. I would guess that's the case here. It also happens in the other direction- big spikes are sometimes a backlog of cases all reported at once.

While true, that map and a photo of an outdoor space with people in it are poor pieces of data to hinge your entire argument on.

You completely failed to take into account people working from home, schools delaying opening and not having been in session since March or April, and all of the other measures that have been put in place to decrease transmission (masks, barriers, decreased social interactions, restaurant closings, other indoor spaces being closed, etc, etc, etc).

Your conclusion is flawed because you left all of these factors out of your analysis.

I don't think this could explain the huge jump in cases and then decline post-reopening in Fl,Az, and LA. They aren't being more careful now than they were in early June. Disney world is open, people are outright refusing to distance or wear masks, the beaches are packed and yet we are seeing a drop in cases.

> They aren't being more careful now than they were in early June.

Source? This is a significant claim. Early June was a low point in cases, hospitalizations and deaths. Lots of states were at peak reopening around then, as things seemed to be on the right track.

For example, bars opened in early June in Florida. They closed on June 26th after cases started spiking.

Louisiana was similar. The state started reopening May 15th. Later in June, bars were then closed back down again, and a mask mandate went into effect.

In Arizona, the story is similar, with gyms, bars and movie theaters shutting back down in July after having opened in May.

What sure seems to be the pattern is: things open up, cases rise, things close back down, cases drop. I'm not so sure that your "they aren't being more careful now than they were in early June" statement is accurate, and I think this is causing you to misattribute the cause of the drops in cases.

Mmmm You can see the timeline of orders that were put into place and the correlation. Here is Florida https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/state-timeline/new-confirme.... No mask mandate at all. Disney world is open. Beaches are open. The only order was bars are shut down. Without other distancing or masks, it's hard to believe that would stop spread.

Florida as a whole enacted mask recommendations in late June.

Miami Dade county enacted a mandatory mask mandate on July 2nd: https://www.miamidade.gov/global/initiatives/coronavirus/eme...

Palm Beach county enacted a mandatory mask mandate on June 25th: https://discover.pbcgov.org/PDF/COVID19/PBC-EO-12.pdf

Hillsborough county enacted a mandatory mask mandate on June 22nd (if I'm reading it right): https://web.archive.org/web/20200706143937/https://www.hills...

Broward county enacted a mandatory mask mandate on July 8th: https://www.broward.org/CoronaVirus/Documents/EmergencyOrder...

Orange county enacted a mandatory mask mandate on June 20th: https://www.orangecountyfl.net/portals/0/library/Emergency-S...

Pinellas county enacted a mandatory mask mandate on June 24th: https://covid19.pinellascounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/0...

In just this list, we're up to mask mandates that cover counties that account for 10 million people, 47% of Florida's population, and accounting for the densest population centers. A number of additional counties also enacted mask mandates, but it got a bit tedious listing them all out.

In other words, in the June-July period, mask mandates were enacted for a majority of the population of Florida.

In another comment, I critiqued this piece as being a shallow analysis. Your comment here is an example of that.

Sweden enacted no mask laws. They have had around 7 deaths in the past week.

In one study showed that mask laws decreased infections by around 2% after 21 days.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.0...

So there's a good chance that masks don't account for the massive decrease in infections you're seeing in Florida.

I think time will tell if you're correct or OP is correct.

If mask laws are lifted, and infection rate still continues to decrease, that means masks are ineffective and OP is correct.

If mask laws are lifted and infection rates increase again that means you are correct as masks did have an effect.

In other places, mask mandates were correlated with a 46% drop in daily new cases. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/08/12/coro...

And even if mask laws are lifted and infection rates continue going down, it does not show that masks are ineffective nor that the OP was correct. After a mask mandate, some people will continue wearing masks and social distancing. As with immunity, the efficacy is in the numbers, with a critical mass necessary to protect the "herd".

So this is a good point. I was just talking with a colleague about this. Some of the herd immunity models take factors like how mobile people are into account. It seems like masks could be a factor in the models of herd immunity. This might be a semantic argument. If population characteristics such as age are part of herd immunity (which is a moving target depending on population), then mask wearing could be considered a population characteristic and included in the model. This would net "drop" herd immunity levels.

The distinction comes down to factors that change (behaviors, mandates, regulations, etc.) and those that don't (age, gender, etc.).

Saying we've reached herd immunity given behavioral changes is largely meaningless, as most people do not want to continue these behavioral changes indefinitely. One of the biggest changes that you failed to acknowledge is that people are not in contact with nearly as many people in their day to day life as they were before. Working from home, kids not in school, limited social interactions, etc.

It's not herd immunity if a return to previous behaviors negates the immunity.

Behavior is a variable that can and should be included in a herd immunity model. The percent immunity needed to achieve Herd immunity will change with behavior. That doesn't negate that it's happening. Louisiana and Florida are pretty much open and seeing a drop in cases. Bars aren't open indoors- but I think we can live with that for a little while?

What's going to be interesting is: after coronavirus is over and we're down to non pandemic levels of infections in the states, restrictions are lifted, and people start going about their pre-pandemic business, I wonder what the explanation will be as to why there's a permanent immunity.

How long will people continue to flog the 'people are continuing to be responsible' horse?

What will it take to finally accept that there's a physiological immunity taking place giving herd immunity?

There's no source in that article you postedfor the claim of 46%.

My 5th grade teacher wouldn't have accepted that as homework much less should it be a mainstream news article.

You can believe what you want though

That aside.

Your point is basically that people will continue to wear masks and social distance even if laws are lifted.

I think thats wrong as evidenced by packed beaches, college parties, and black lives protests.

People are not going to be responsible, what's stopping most of these people presently is laws...and barely.

The reason the numbers are going to continue to go down is not due to behavior it's due to physiological immunity.

But you set yourself up with an unprovable argument either way with no evidence for your claims other than 'people are responsible'.

When it's abundantly clear that people are not.

I also took a roadtrip across the northeast a month ago so I saw a lot of how careful people were being. Ocean City, NJ was packed and almost no one was wearing masks. The upper east side was packed in NYC. I got a chicken sandwich at an indoor take out place where the guy serving me had one glove on and gave me the sandwich with the hand without the glove. Central park was full of people not wearing masks. Fireworks and protests all night. The argument that people are taking this seriously is just not true in NY and NJ. I can't imagine Florida is better than that.

I agree that i haven't quantified how careful people are being though. There has to be a way to do this. I know there was some drone plan to see how many masks were being worn in parts of the country. It might be worth getting some numbers for this.

Your observations are quite subjective and flawed. Yes, Disney world is open, that is hardly the end of it. Is it the same Disney World as before the pandemic? It’s not a binary situation. You can’t just point out that because a place is now open, instead of closed, therefore there are no precautions being taken. We can be debate whether they are taking enough precautions, but you can’t just use this the way you have in this article.

This whole article is just a gut check without real evidence.

Different cities have different mask regulations, and even without mandates, many are wearing them.

Disney is open with drastic changes to how they operate: https://www.tampabay.com/life-culture/entertainment/theme-pa...

Beaches are outdoors and while they make look crowded, people often maintain more than 6 feet between each other at the beach anyway.

The numbers are going down in Florida because people finally got a taste of how serious it is and changed their behavior.

The fact that you keep downplaying behavioral changes and completely ignoring other changes like people working from home and schools being out shows you are wedded to your conclusion. Unfortunately, it is fundamentally flawed.

You've made a extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to back it up with extraordinary evidence. A couple graphs of new cases going down and a photo of a boardwalk (where nearly everyone is in a mask) is not sufficient to support your claim.

In Miami-Dade County in Florida, it's not only bars that are closed but all indoor dining is not allowed. Restaurants had opened for dining for a short while but that was banned again in July. And masks are required in public everywhere, even outdoors. And a strict countywide curfew has been in place since July.

It's fixed now btw

This article in the Atlantic mentions possible herd immunity at < 40%.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/herd-immu...

> Back in February, Lipsitch gave a very rough estimate that, absent intervention, herd immunity might happen after 40 to 70 percent of the population had been infected.

Which is actually a mischaracterization of what the previous article[1] said:

> Lipsitch predicts that within the coming year, some 40 to 70 percent of people around the world will be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19.

At no point does he mention herd immunity. So, no, he's not saying herd immunity at 40%.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/02/covid-vac...

It's very hard to trust these low prevalance numbers when, for example, I know a few people who are close friends with people in medical fields who tested positive but they themselves didn't get tested but had mild symptoms. I myself had mild symptoms that I'm 99% sure is covid and didn't get tested.

Just because you and your friends weren't tested, doesn't mean the statistics are invalid. The link above was from random antibody testing and has a high confidence interval.

I've been sick twice during this time. Thought it had to be COVID, but two PCR tests and an antibody test all came back negative. Maybe the tests are flawed, sure, but it's far more likely I just had something else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com