3 ms·
There is substantial criticism mounting directed at the Heinsberg study [1] - Immunity tests used might have shown false positives. So the 15% might be too hig
by morgengold 7y ago
There is substantial criticism mounting directed at the Heinsberg study [1]
- Immunity tests used might have shown false positives. So the 15% might be too high.
- Results of the highly infected town Gangelt are not transferable to whole Germany with lower infection rates.
- The author of the study is inflicted with a marketing agency, which is at least uncommon in science.
Own comment: The danger SARS-Cov19 remains in the speed of spreading due to missing herd immunity (in contrast to the common flu). 0.37 per cent is still a lot. USA: 327,200,000*0.37% = 1,210,640. Social distancing remains the single most effective tool.
[1] https://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2020-04/heinsberg-studie-coronavirus-hendrik-streeck-storymachine-kai-diekmann/ https://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2020-04/heinsberg-stud...
- guscost 7y agoThere is always substantial criticism of any minority position in science, it's a subculture full of bullshit politics like any other. Also see my other comment - 15% could just as easily be too low: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22835310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22835310
- morgengold 7y agoYes, but in this case the criticism comes from the majority position. Not in a harsh way, but still. Regarding your other comment about the 15%. You might have a point. But I'm not into this topic deep enough for any kind of judgement.