This was a helpful blog post in discussing why herd immunity might be the wrong term to use for what most people mean and why it might not be a good goal for COVID-19:
https://medium.com/@gidmk/the-facts-about-herd-immunity-and-covid-19-3230616b70a3
Thanks, but my question was about the claim in the thread title that Georgia is far from herd immunity and then the lack of supporting evidence in the opening post.
By the way, the foundation of the article you posted is that a person can get Covid over and over. This foundation is based on a few reports of people testing twice and is not a sound foundation.
There’s plenty of evidence, and I presented it. You obviously have far different priors than I, so I don’t know that we will ever agree on the issue.
Peace,
Chris
Yes, we do disagree. And I presented why I disagree.
What do you know about the 300k+ antibody tests?
And do you have any idea who was tested and the extent to which those tested are representative of the population in general?
Given the rate of spread, Georgia has certainly not reached the point of effective herd immunity.
There is a difference between “has certainly not reached” and the thread title “far from herd immunity.”
I don’t know anyone who is claiming that Georgia has reached herd immunity. The question is about “far from,” and what supports that declaration.
Are you trying to make some kind of point by reposting an irrelevant definition of ‘sample’?
Yes. It gives some information about what the population is like. A convenience sample doesn’t give unbiased information, which is why a random sample would be much better, but quite often we have to make do with the information we have.
1 Like
Thanks, Steve. A clear “yes” is much more than I usually receive.
We disagree on whether the data without provenance is information or just misused data.
To embrace biased data to support a desired narrative lacks desirability.
We also disagree that it represents the 10+ million residents of the state as a whole.
Since I haven’t been paying attention to this thread or to the situation in Georgia, I hardly have a desired narrative to support. I am making a broader point: very often the only data we have is biased. Biases have to be acknowledged and where possible estimated, and all possible sources of information should be mined, but biased data is still data and biased samples are still samples.
As for whether Georgia is close to herd immunity, if I were actually interested in the question I’d compare the estimated mortality rate (per capita) in Georgia to that in hard-hit areas that now have increasing case counts (e.g. NYC and Madrid). In particular, I’d compare age-stratified mortality rates to estimate the relative infection rate in the various locations (making some kind of correction for improved survival now compared to earlier in the outbreak – something like a factor of two, from what I’ve seen). If the estimated infection rates in Georgia are substantially higher than the hard-hit places, then it’s possible that Georgia is approaching herd immunity. Otherwise, no.
1 Like
Biased data can mislead.
In this case, it helped someone to draw an unjustified conclusion: “far from herd immunity.”
As to biased data, a subset of data that is not likely to be representative of the whole, being a sample — it is certainly not a sample based on the first definition that pops up in a Google search.
Speaking of Georgia, do you think Andy Stanley’s church did the right thing with holding off on in person services until 2021 seeing as how things are still pretty hot with Covid?
1 Like
I think Andy made a wise decision. The church is definitely not closed. We are still having small group meetings and video services. Our annual Be Rich campaign continued.
My small group has met more frequently during the pandemic, and we are meeting by
Zoom.
On 10/25 the church will have an outdoor 25th birthday event with circles drawn on the lawn. Andrew Stanley, Andy’s son, will likely be doing stand-up comedy there. He’s funny.
By deciding to stop in-person services through the end of the year, the church staff was able to focus more thoroughly on making the new (not-in-person) approach work in the best way.
A big driver in the decision was the church’s inability to contact trace.
2 Likes
Then maybe you should stop learning about statistics by looking at the first definition that pops up in a google search.
1 Like
That is not how I learn about statistics, but it is helpful to use standard definitions when communicating.
If you want to take a subset of data of unknown origin and pretend it is representative of a population, then I am not the one who needs to learn about statistics.
Then use standard definitions. Use the standard definition of ‘convenience sample’.
Since at this point you seem to be ignoring what I’m writing and just repeat yourself, all I can say is, have a good day.
1 Like
You have a good day too.
An interesting (to me, at least) article:
“This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe, actually,” he said. “And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: Stop using lockdown as your primary control method, develop better systems for doing it, work together and learn from each other, but remember—lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.
There were no alternatives suggested, in particular for bars and restaurants.
Well, Dale, perhaps this paragraph can be read as an alternative:
The declaration states, “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.”
Easy to say, way easier said than done.