I know the author of that tweet personally and he is not a nobody but he is also not pretending to be a scientist either.

he is merely speaking to politicians sometime having a desire to jump, in a CYA type way, before ensuring they consider all the data.

I think his advise in that tweet is very prudent.

When it comes to epidemiology he is a nobody. If he means that so are the politicans then sure. Let's listen to those damn experts instead I say.

Great let's wait for politicans to consider all of the data they don't have ****ing clue about. In the uk at least their instinct is that what really really matters is christmas and that the virus will oblige.

There is some real hope it will cause a lot less deaths. This looks hopeful

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...ikely-to-cause

The situation with omicron is like there being a really vicious hurricane out there in the ocean about to hit the land where we live.

Some people say well here's some data saying that it will be very serious but that we may well miss the worst of it so lets consider all the data before losing our mind.

The experts meanwhile are saying the worst possible thing imaginable to the public and the politicians. They are saying yes it will hit us but dont really know quite how badly it will hit us and we wont know until shortly afterwards.

Ya but as I said, he is a very politically connected guy Ontario so almost certainly he is messaging to Politicians based on what he is hearing and knows. Nothing wrong with him doing that.

How would the virus be selecting for, or front loading, 'non vulnerable people' at the start to skew this stat?

There is if he moves them in any direction but towards listening more to the people who have some idea what they're talking about.

If the following premises are true:

Omicron is much more likely to be asymptomatic in the vaccinated

Asymptomatic cases are much less likely to be detected.

Asymptomatic people are almost as likely to give covid to people they come in contact with (including an occasional serious case) as symptomatic people.

Anti vaxxers who show symptoms are almost as likely to get a test and then avoid others if positive, then pro vaxxers who test positive.

Then:

For those who can't afford to test very frequently, avoiding vaccinations could be rationalized as the choice of the unselfish rather than the selfish.



It is likely that at least one of the above premises is untrue. But in any case, I am expecting to see this argument bandied about in the near future.

Because young people socialise in bars and clubs etc etc and old people are staying home etc.

You also need to know SA testing regime, for a long while they were only really testing people arriving at hospital, so this of course led to a massive CFR, if they have started more testing in the community this is going to cause a very significant drop in CFR.

There are so many problems with a superficial analaysis of that data. Proper analysis is coming from those who among other things make great effort to compare like for like. As linked the 'it's more mild' case is looking a lot less completely obvious

That is an argument that any rich country that doesn't make testing free, deserves.

that is what I though you meant.

I have spoken about that in another thread.

How younger people and those who embrace the virus (for lack of a better term) are amongst the first waves of any who get it, you see numbers soar but then they start to act as a sort of break wall as they get the virus, don't get seriously sick (some do though and may die) and then recover with some immunity and as such out in society end up being somewhat of a barrier to spread to those being more careful.

Sure or not sure, but the above is absolutely tangential to the point I am making.

Yes it is. You are simply wrong on that.

Herd immunity is not a set thing. It is a loose concept and my loose description is absolutely part of it.

Expose population A to virus or predators purposely or not. Population generally loses (the cull) the weakest and most vulnerable amongst them until they get to a point where the predator or virus has little or no impact on the remaining members due to them being the stronger, healthier and now mostly immune ones.. The herd thn becomes stronger (more immune) against the predator/virus going forward.

it is not an absolute thing. It does not mean the virus/predator can never take anyone else nor that there won't be cycles but when they are generally talking about herd immunity in nature this is a big part of what they are talking about.

Update: So far, literally zero restaurants and stores that I have personally been to are enforcing Newsome's latest edict here in Chico.

I struggle to see why impotent government and an apathetic public is good news during an ongoing pandemic.

Anybody who chooses to can wear a mask if they want. Anyone can "vote with their feet" and not enter a store where people are not wearing masks. All retail stores and restaurants that I am aware of offer delivery and/or curbside service.

Newsome should certainly encourage folks to get vaccinated and wear masks, but mandating such things is a bit of a reach, in my opinion.

Which doesn't really address the post you were replying to. And I don't know why you bring up vaccinations - did Newsom pass or suggest a vaccine mandate?

Wow, this is great. I was really hoping when I opened the LOLCANADA thread, I'd get to read a riveting argument about the definition of herd immunity. I sure hope when I next check in, it's continuing.

Perhaps this will help:

An evil government and their dog are herding derps.

They finish and the dog says "I counted 40 derps"

The evil government replies, "Weird, I only got 37"

The dog replies "I rounded them up"

So so so many people struggle with the concept that the health care system has a processing capacity, if it looks like that capacity has X risk of being over whelmed, then you try and mitigate that.

Concepts people struggle with:

1. It only has to be a risk of being overwhelmed, it does not have to be a 100% locked in certainty.

2. Mitigations can be turned off an on, the point of mitigations is not to end the pandemic once and for all. The point of mitigations is to limit the load on the processing capacity of the HCS.

3. Yes if a new variant emerges, sorry, mitigations are coming back, even if, omfg no ****ing wayz, they did the mitigation before.

4. If you have to do something negative to stop something even more negative from happening, and are successful at doing this, smaller, less able minds are only able to dwell on the negative that actually happened and cant process a conceptuality of a greater negative that never happened, because the smaller actually happened negative stopped it.

Someone is convinced he holds the sole and only definition for words that describe a loose concept and that he needs to lecture and tell anyone using it in a way he does not approve, they are wrong. We'll see if he is capable of just agreeing to disagree and moving on or if he just wants a fight.

Herd immunity

Its become loose only because a certain political element has had to back off from full immunity, eradication of the virus, because its not (currently) possible, and thus retrench at serious illness, its the same process you see in the global warming debate, where you see say, its not happening to it is happening but its to expensive to do anything about.