Herd immunity = bad assumption?

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   7 posts
  • Thu, Mar 26, 2020 - 12:00pm

    #1
    ozzy43

    ozzy43

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 29 2008

    Posts: 14

    count placeholder1+

    Herd immunity = bad assumption?

Absolutely loving the coverage of HB-19 here on Peak Prosperity – seems odd that watching videos with this kind of dire information should be a highlight of my day, but there it is. But then, I’ve always found Chris’ clear thinking refreshing. I bought 50 Crash Course DVDs when it first came out and distributed to all of my friends and family!

That said, one bone to pick: in many of Chris’ videos, he implies that there is some natural immunity that gets conferred on COVID-19 survivors. In fact, in the latest video (3/25), I believe he made this assertion explicitly. The implication in these cases, at least as I understood it, is that such immunity would be permanent or quasi-permanent.

I’ve seen zero research to support this claim, and in fact, if you think about our common experiences of herd immunity, these all derive from vaccinating our way to it. Polio, smallpox, chicken pox, measles, etc – all herd immunity via vaccination. Those diseases were around for decades or centuries and humans never developed a natural immunity, which is precisely why vaccines were hailed as such miracles!

Even the seasonal flu – a coronavirus – does not confer any more than a few months worth of partial immunity, especially in the face of various strains.

So why this assertion about HB-19?

(And BTW, think about what this implies about the UK’s original misguided thinking about letting the disease ‘burn its way through’ the population)

If there is in fact evidence that having COVID-19 gives survivor’s of it durable immunity, please provide pointers; if not, let’s reset this premise!

– Oz, in Denver

  • Thu, Mar 26, 2020 - 12:30pm

    #2

    Jim H

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 993

    count placeholder

    Herd immunity = bad assumption? Monkey data promisting

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/monkeys-develop-protective-antibodies-to-sars-cov-2-67281

If I remember correctly Chris mentioned this study several videos back in the series..

 

  • Thu, Mar 26, 2020 - 12:41pm

    #3
    ozzy43

    ozzy43

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 29 2008

    Posts: 14

    count placeholder

    Reply To: Herd immunity = bad assumption?

Thank for that Jim – I had not seen this before.

Now, that said, I’d bring the same level of scrutiny to this that Chris does to the studies he reviews in his videos.

It’s based on TWO monkeys – and even they developed a slight fever after re-administration.

“This is a really critical preliminary study,” says Lisa Gralinski, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who wasn’t involved in the study.

Just based on this, we could say ‘there may be some hope for *some* level of immunity against re-infection’ – but the assertions to which I’m referring go far beyond that kind of cautious optimism.

As noted in OP, seasonal flu confers a few months of partial immunity, so this could easily fit the study findings.

I’m not convinced we should be assuming natural immunity, certainly beyond a few months. The premise that such a thing is likely, let alone certain, dramatically changes the decisions made from a chain of logic beginning with that premise.

I still think a reset is in order.

  • Thu, Mar 26, 2020 - 12:42pm

    #4
    kunga

    kunga

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 26 2017

    Posts: 251

    count placeholder

    Herd immunity = bad assumption?

Ozzy43, Thank you for bringing up these points, I ave also wondered about them.

JimH thanks for the study.

  • Thu, Mar 26, 2020 - 12:45pm

    #5
    ver7ubhup

    ver7ubhup

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 26 2020

    Posts: 4

    count placeholder

    Herd immunity = bad assumption?

Agree with ur thinking. Some evidence from China that immunity lasts for about 1 month and about 14% got re-infected after recovering from 1st infection.  My crude understanding of Vaccination is that it works by selecting virus that have made multiple passes through lab hosts and are no longer as strong but still elicit a useful antibody response in the end customer being vaccinated. I’m not very knowledgeable on this and would love to see responses from those who are

 

  • Thu, Mar 26, 2020 - 04:42pm

    #6
    guslacerda

    guslacerda

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 23 2020

    Posts: 2

    count placeholder

    Herd immunity = bad assumption?

RE: reinfection study referenced by [email protected], my understanding is that the tests have a high error rate.  The consensus among my knowledgeable friends is that >95% of recovered people get immunity lasting >1 year.

Gustavo

  • Thu, Mar 26, 2020 - 06:11pm

    #7
    Chris Martenson

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 5031

    count placeholder

    Herd immunity = bad assumption?

This is a good point.  We don’t know much of anything about the longevity of the immune response post-HB-19 infection.

I should be more careful with my statements and put a qualifier in there.  “Assuming long lasting immunity results from infection, we can assume…”

I’ve also covered, and worried a bit, about the possibility of an ADE reaction upon second exposure, after either a natural infection or post immunization.

Again, no new information to report on that.  We’re going to have to wait to see what this fall brings to former HB-19 vitims in China.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

Login or Register to post comments