3 ms·

This data might suggest that the lockdowns suppressed the infection rate down to 20% at this moment in time. Without a lockdown, a month more of infections wou

This data might suggest that the lockdowns suppressed the infection rate down to 20% at this moment in time. Without a lockdown, a month more of infections would have likely bumped NYC to achieving herd immunity, or 60-ish percent, since 20% to 60% does not take long with exponential growth. This means two things. One, it would mean that we would have almost certainly overwhelmed the hospitals with triple the rate of infections. We've be leaving people dead in the streets and it would be a humanitarian disaster as every hospital was at double capacity. It would also have meant that the curve would be flattened for good.

joe_maley 7y ago
>It would also have meant that the curve would be flattened for good. I have yet to see any evidence that covid antibodies provide long-term immunity. We can't say with any certainty that the curve would be permanently flattened. It may just be flattened for a few weeks, a few months, or a few years.
- thehappypm 7y ago
  With no long-term immunity, lockdowns need to be permanent until we have a vaccine or treatment. That's not feasible. If there's no immunity we might as well end the lockdowns.