You would have to understand the argument to claim that the goalposts were moved.

I understand your argument perfectly. I just claim it to be utter shit. I called you out on it. You moved the goalpost.

What is the primary endpoint of success in the trials? To make it easy for you, the study protocols are here:

https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/mRNA-1273-P301-Protocol.pdf


https://pfe-pfizercom-d8-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/2020-09/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol.pdf


https://s3.amazonaws.com/ctr-med-7111/D8110C00001/52bec400-80f6-4c1b-8791-0483923d0867/c8070a4e-6a9d-46f9-8c32-cece903592b9/D8110C00001_CSP-v2.pdf


https://www.jnj.com/coronavirus/ensemble-1-study-protocol

As much as this could be a very thought provoking thread, it seems to run the risk of quickly devolving into childish arguments (perhaps that is to be expected given our unfortunate political discourse these days).

Dan, any chance of making this a poll topic?

I would genuinely be curious how the results would shake out and the poll results might be rather insightful.

your politics are not my business. nobody comes here to listen to me talk about politics, nor should they. i'll try to take more care to keep politics out of this forum and certainly out of my own posts on this forum.

what is germane, to this forum, is congruency in one's thinking. over my 6 and a half decades what i think i've observed is that occasional lack of congruency, and when one abandons the axioms that guide one's personal behavior and choices, it's invariably a barrier to advancement or improvement. i see my job here - in this thread, on this site, when teaching a bike fit workshop, what have you - as reminding folks what those axioms are that cause one to make wise choices, and exhorting you all to keep up the discipline of relying on those axioms regardless of vocation or avocation.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I accidentally was let out of the Lavender Room because I had a tri-relevant question... I forgot where I was for a second... My apologies, I will slink back to where I belong "over there"

:)

we did this as a poll. this thread was sort of in service of that poll, or spawned the poll. here was the poll question:

"If select races could occur in 2021 if a Covid vaccine was required of participants; and if a vaccine was widely available to most or all participants pre-race; would you be in favor of a "vaccine passport" system for such races?"

here is how it came out, and there were 1,214 respondents:

yes: 68%
no: 27%
unsure: 5%

i think it's moot at this point, in most of the U.S. you take my state of calif as an example, we switched to our lowest lockdown restrictions yesterday, and we'll be full open in 5 weeks, no restrictions.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

What this poll and thread have established is that around 30% of the population consists of sociopaths that think they are better and more knowledgeable than everyone else. They refuse to make choices that will positively impact their health and the health of others.

i wouldn't go nearly that far! i can see a reason why someone would be among that 28 percent in the poll: they fear that vaccine passport use is a step toward an erosion in civil liberties. i don't think so. but we had a guy on here yesterday, i think, who believes mask wearing will be with us into 2022. maybe he's right. i don't think so. but i think it's a fair point to discuss.

pardon my pedantry, but to me this is a civil discussion among well-meaning people that can be had if we agree to use the same rules that govern our behavior that we all employ 95 percent of the time.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

A message for those who are now all about the "shared sacrifice, we're all in this together" mentality: If you apply this notion globally,

It is unethical for a young, low risk american to use up a globally scarce vaccine. Instead, you should tell your government to send it to a country where virtually none of the vulnerable people have been vaccinated, and are still dying in high numbers of covid.


In the meantime, if you're young and low risk, and still in fear, you can stay at home and wear an FFP2 mask when you venture outside your bubble. If you're not in fear, you can go do tri's and enjoy everything else that life offers us.

If you disagree with this notion, please justify how alleviating your fear is more important than saving the life of an 80-year old in a distant country.

By the way, many of us currently not wanting the vaccination were very willing to "sacrifice" ourselves 14 months ago by building herd immunity among the young/healthy by, you know, contracting the disease. We, along with prominent scientists, advocated focused protection for the vulnerable and disease transmission amongst the low risk.

But the fear-mongers carried the day and locked us all away. This whole thing could have been over with 10 months ago if there had been a true "shared sacrifice." You lockdown zealots are sacrificing nothing...you love working from home in your virtue bubbles while the people who make society function are making sure you have food, electricity, and heating fuel.

i am fine having any discussion with you on this you want, but at a certain point it's probably best having it in the other forum.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Had we done this in the United States, we'd possibly have five million people dead from this disease. Decent people would never allow this to happen, and thankfully, prevailed.

https://www.npr.org/...om-dying-of-covid-19

How many variants is it going to take before this absurd notion is removed from your head?

Sorry if I don't remember you mentioning this in another thread, but have you contracted Covid and if so, did you get checked for evidence of myocarditis? That's a risk of contracting Covid to which the young/healthy aren't immune and could potentially really screw things up for an endurance athlete.

Do you have an example where we've reached herd immunity for a disease without a vaccine?

After reading this thread, and the many others the last 14 months, I am VERY happy with the "hide user's posts" button. It has saved me from reading even more ridiculous "opinions" that if those people had their way would be on the hook with killing countless other lives while "reaching herd immunity" which would never have happened.

---

Twitter - Instagram

In respecting Dan's request to stay on topic:

Premise: Prohibiting tri participation for the unvaccinated will encourage young healthy people to get vaccinated.
Fact: Globally, vaccines are scarce. Vulnerable people across the world are still dying because they can't access a vaccine.
Fact: Many countries, but not the usa, are sharing their vaccines with countries who have fewer resources.
Observation: Many people in this thread will feel much safer if all of their tri competitors are also vaccinated.

Question: Is it ethical for a healthy young american to use up two of the world's short supply of vaccines? Or would those shots be better utilized by a vulnerable person in another country?

In other words: Does your obsession with living in a safety bubble trump an 80-year old's desire to simply live?

Based on the deflection and non-response the first time I asked it, I'm guessing you all think so. Nice community of "self sacrificing" individuals you've curated here, Dan.

Define "herd immunity" in terms of R0.

To put more meat on the bone, vaccines are merely an intervention. But there are many interventions. The vaccine is not even the most effective intervention for COVID. For instance, countries that intervened with extreme lockdowns will likely outperform those with the vaccine. I would put money that the per capita infection and death rates of NZ will be lower than Israel a year from now.

Further, "herd" is meaningless since there are many herds. For instance, my "herd" has achieved "immunity" from AIDS without a vaccine. The intervention to achieve this is the avoidance of gay sex and IV drug use. There may be other "herds" that have not achieved immunity but mine has.

My "herd" has also achieved "immunity" from rabies without a vaccine. The intervention used to achieve this is the avoidance of rabid animals. There are other "herds" that may not have achieved "herd immunity" but mine has.

The list of diseases that fits this description is actually quite long.

I think the question that you actually want to ask is "how many pandemics have been stopped without a vaccine?" I think the answer to that question would be "most." For instance every flu pandemic, bubonic plague, cholera, etc. has ended without a vaccine intervention.

Question for you: Can you name a vaccine against a mutating respiratory virus in which the effectiveness has not degraded significantly over time?

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. If someone in a particular country waives a chance to get vaccinated then there is not a courier waiting to get that dose to a plane and used somewhere else. The way to get vaccines to countries with less supply is exactly the opposite. Your local government is far more likely to be generous with their supply if and when their local population get's vaccinated.

I absolutely think the global issue of fairness of vaccine distribution is vitally important. But I think it's disingenuous to actually question people's moral character when what you are describing is a false choice you've constructed and has no basis in reality.

Yes, clearly the solution is to distribute vaccines with high standards of storage and delivery to countries that lack the bureaucracy, centralized leadership, and infrastructure to support delivery of those vaccines. Yep.

Maybe if you wanted to actually help, you'd spend more time campaigning against the rampant anti-Chinese xenophobia so people in the developing world can get some sort of vaccine.

I'm thinking you should keep editing your comment until it makes sense. The percent of the population that needs to be immune to achieve herd immunity is related to R0, but the definition of herd immunity isn't tied to R0. To help you out, here is the definition of R0:


If you're asking what the herd immunity threshold is for CoVid-19, I don't know for sure, but the numbers thrown around by people smarter than me are 70-80%.

I'll answer my original question. There isn't a disease in modern history that has ever reached herd immunity without a vaccine. The main thing held up for that is the 1918 flu, but you can pretty convincingly argue that the 1918 flu never really went away. We didn't achieve herd immunity for it, we just learned to accept that influenza will kill quite a few people every year, with occasional mutations that will cause major outbreaks every couple of years. In fact, the H1N1 flu has re-emerged several times in the past 100 years. The flu outbreaks in 1957, 1968, and 2009 all directly trace their ancestry back to the 1918 flu. In fact:

Does that sound like herd immunity?

If you're asking what the herd immunity threshold is for CoVid-19, I don't know for sure, but the numbers thrown around by people smarter than me are 70-80%.

I'm thinking you should keep editing your comment until it makes sense. The percent of the population that needs to be immune to achieve herd immunity is related to R0, but the definition of herd immunity isn't tied to R0.


I edited because I initially included IFR. If a tree falls in the forest and no one knows, does anyone care? But that was not the question.

You answered the question but likely did not realize it: There is no definition of “herd immunity.” It is a buzzword that both sides throw around as if it means something, but it means very little. That is because “herd” and “immunity” are both ambiguous terms.

To call the flu vaccine a "vaccine" is extremely generous. But do not take my word for it, take the word of America's Favorite Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm. As reported in that right wing rag, the New York Times. Feel free to click on the U of MN report linked to get a sense of the degree of bullshit that goes with the flu "vaccine."

From the article: “We have overpromoted and overhyped this vaccine,” said Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, as well as its Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance. “It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.”

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/reassessing-flu-shots-as-the-season-draws-near/

i appreciate the shout out, but that was not my premise. there was no implicit motive or message. i only wanted to know how you all felt about the prospect of a race being able to take place - that would not otherwise have been able to take place - if that race only allowed vaccinated participants.

i'm not as interested as i probably should be in whether you get the vaccine. i don't feel we should make any special effort: we shouldn't force, bribe or threaten you. we should educate you, and then that's it. i guess i probably feel that way about seat belts and bicycle helmets. as long as your freedom to be you doesn't affect the rest of us, there's a point where you should just be allowed to either enjoy, or face, or escape the consequences of your choice.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

You asked for Herd Immunity as defined by R0, but the R0 term specifically refers to an unprotected group, so I'm still not sure where you were asking. The fact that the required immune population changes with other factors doesn't mean that the concept of herd immunity is useless.

My original point was the there is no herd immunity to be achieved by letting CoVid-19 burn through the population. The only way we've ever mostly eliminated a disease involved vaccination (Polio, Smallpox, mumps, measles, rubella, etc). Admittedly, when people stop vaccinating those diseases start to have a resurgence.

I never argued that the flu vaccine was effective, in fact, I argued that the 1918 pandemic never ended, but way to devote over half of your comment to something I didn't say.

  
You asked for Herd Immunity as defined by R0, but the R0 term specifically refers to an

"Herd immunity" is a fancy way of describing the path of infection when r0 <1.
https://www.path.org/...urney-herd-immunity/

But

"herd" is subjective which is why you and I do not have to worry about AIDS even though there is no vaccine.

and

"immunity" is subjective which is why there is not a lot of concern for lack of vaccine for common cold.

The original question was "Do you have an example where we've reached herd immunity for a disease without a vaccine?"

This is a meaningless question for the points above. The fact that those that use this phrase cannot define it in objective terms should tip you off to this point.

If you phrase the question to "name a disease without a vaccine in which r0 <1" the answer is "almost all."