@bethanyshondark THREAD: OK, @bethanyshondark, I'm going to assume you're just frustrated, but still are open-minded, and explain the science of why closures are VITAL, and when they can end:
1/...
1/...
@bethanyshondark Without interventions (vaccine, testing/quarantine, physical distancing), the virus will keep spreading until herd immunity kicks in -- ie, until a sufficient % of the population becomes immune, at which point the virus effectively has nowhere to spread, and begins dying off.
...
...
@bethanyshondark Immunity comes in two flavors: immunization, or having antibodies from surviving the disease. No vaccine? Then the virus will keep spreading (and keep killing people) until a sufficient % of the population has caught the disease to confer herd immunity.
...
...
@bethanyshondark ... How many people need to get sick before we reach herd immunity? That depends on how contagious the virus is – called R0 ("R naught"). R0 = how many people each infected person infects in turn. Higher R0 = higher % of a pop. must be immune before herd immunity kicks in.
...
...
@bethanyshondark COVID-19's R0 appears to be between 5 and 7, which epidemiologists say means we won't have herd immunity until 80-85% of us have had the disease.
...
...
@bethanyshondark Now let's do some simple math:
330M Americans x 80% = 264 million Americans getting COVID-19 before herd immunity kicks in.
And that doesn't depend on whether the curve is steep or flattened; fast or slow, absent interventions 264 million Americans will catch COVID-19.
80+%
...
330M Americans x 80% = 264 million Americans getting COVID-19 before herd immunity kicks in.
And that doesn't depend on whether the curve is steep or flattened; fast or slow, absent interventions 264 million Americans will catch COVID-19.
80+%
...
@bethanyshondark More math: COVID-19's mortality rate in the US is unclear, bec. we haven't done enough tests to know the total number of people infected, but serious estimates range from 0.5% to 10%. Let's be optimistic and take the low end. 264M infected x 0.5% = 1.3 million Americans dead.
...
...
@bethanyshondark (And that's almost certainly low; other countries are well over 10%. If our mortality is just half that, or 5%, then 13 MILLION Americans will die, relying only on herd immunity.)
1.3 MILLION deaths, MINIMUM. Maybe 13 million. Maybe more. But let's use 1.3M; it's bad enough.
...
1.3 MILLION deaths, MINIMUM. Maybe 13 million. Maybe more. But let's use 1.3M; it's bad enough.
...
@bethanyshondark How can we reduce this unacceptable figure? The best way is to develop a vaccine – which takes years.
So WHILE we're working on a vaccine, we must keep people alive. That's one reason the shutdown makes sense: to prevent 1.3M Americans from dying before we perfect a vaccine.
...
So WHILE we're working on a vaccine, we must keep people alive. That's one reason the shutdown makes sense: to prevent 1.3M Americans from dying before we perfect a vaccine.
...
@bethanyshondark But here's something cool: RIGHT NOW, WITHOUT A VACCINE, we can CHANGE THE R0, and thus LOWER THE HERD IMMUNITY PERCENTAGE and the NUMBER OF DEATHS!
...
...
@bethanyshondark Remember, herd immunity depends on R0. The lower the R0, the lower the percentage of the immune population needs to be for herd immunity to kick in. ...
@bethanyshondark (Which makes sense: if a virus isn't very contagious, then not many people are going to catch it; and if not many people catch it, it's an evolutionarily unsuccessful virus and eventually will die out.)
...
...
@bethanyshondark The tipping point is R0 <1: if each infected person infects less than one new person, the virus eventually will disappear.
We have to make it so each infected person infects one or fewer other people, instead of the current 5-7.
...
We have to make it so each infected person infects one or fewer other people, instead of the current 5-7.
...
@bethanyshondark So (absent a vaccine), how can we make it so that instead of each person with the virus infecting 5-7 other people, they only infect one (or fewer)?
Simple (at least in theory): by keeping infected people away from non-infected people.
...
Simple (at least in theory): by keeping infected people away from non-infected people.
...
@bethanyshondark There are two ways to keep infected people away from non-infected people. The first, and best, is to do a lot of good testing. Ideally, we'd test EVERYONE, then quarantine the ones who are infected until they recover, while the rest could go about their normal lives.
...
...
@bethanyshondark Or, since 330M is a LOT of sinus swabs, a more pragmatic option is to test everyone who has symptoms AND everyone who's been in contact with them, PLUS do random testing in the general community to identify any new hotspots before they spread.
It's the best practical solution...
It's the best practical solution...
@bethanyshondark But we're a LOOONG way from doing that many tests here in the US (plus, many of the tests currently being used are yielding false results). So: we need to keep working HARD on that, because the insufficient/flawed testing we're currently doing won't stop the spread.
...
...
@bethanyshondark ...
(Which is why people keep giving Trump such a hard time when he lies about how good our tests are and how many we're doing. They're NOT good, and we're NOT doing enough of them, and THAT'S what's keeping the damn economy shut down.)
...
(Which is why people keep giving Trump such a hard time when he lies about how good our tests are and how many we're doing. They're NOT good, and we're NOT doing enough of them, and THAT'S what's keeping the damn economy shut down.)
...
@bethanyshondark So since we don't yet have a vaccine, and since we don't have adequate testing yet, we're back to that 1.3-million-dead-Americans problem.
Is there some OTHER way to keep infected people away from healthy people, if we don't even know who the infected people are?
...
Is there some OTHER way to keep infected people away from healthy people, if we don't even know who the infected people are?
...
@bethanyshondark YES. We can keep ALL people away from ALL OTHER people (as much as possible, and within reason).
If people are sheltering at home and working remotely and interacting as little as possible, then fewer infections will occur, R0 will decrease, and we'll reach herd immunity sooner.
If people are sheltering at home and working remotely and interacting as little as possible, then fewer infections will occur, R0 will decrease, and we'll reach herd immunity sooner.
@bethanyshondark (And, in the meantime, fewer people will be dying between now and when we get our act together to implement adequate testing -- which we could have had by now, and still CAN have within months, given competent leadership!)
...
...
@bethanyshondark So here's our choice: we can keep implementing physical distancing as much as possible while we work REALLY REALLY HARD to implement adequate testing/quarantine and develop a vaccine.
Or we can "reopen" and let 1.3 million Americans (or 13 million Americans?) die.
...
Or we can "reopen" and let 1.3 million Americans (or 13 million Americans?) die.
...
@bethanyshondark "Hunker down/reduce R0 until we can get testing/quarantine in place" clearly is the better option -- but only if our leaders are actually doing the hard work it will take to put comprehensive testing and quarantine in place.
...
...
@bethanyshondark Instead, Trump's lying about testing and Pence is dissolving the COVID task force.
So: unhappy about being shut down? Blame the people who are openly choosing the "million dead Americans" option instead of doing the hard work to implement testing + make things good again.
/end
So: unhappy about being shut down? Blame the people who are openly choosing the "million dead Americans" option instead of doing the hard work to implement testing + make things good again.
/end
