3 ms·
It's not antibody immunity. That's why I said we don't understand. 20% is nowhere near enough to explain the patterns we're seeing. The good news is that even
by grey-area 6y ago
It's not antibody immunity. That's why I said we don't understand. 20% is nowhere near enough to explain the patterns we're seeing.
The good news is that even though we don't understand it, the NY experience does point towards a potentially more muted second wave in areas which were hit hard the first time round (as long as they take precautions at least), but we just don't know enough to be sure - anyone who is sure about the outcome at this point is probably overconfident and wrong.
- air_ml 6y ago20% of the total population is probably 60% of choiceless and careless. Percentage of the population that are exposed to a potential Covid infection, either due necessity (essential workers and so on) or stupidity is much less than 100%. Someone who has been barricaded inside of their home since February most likely doesn't have antibodies, but at the same time is not a potential Covid spreader.
- thu2111 6y ago20% is nowhere near enough to explain the patterns we're seeing. ... according to epidemiologists who have been utterly discredited, no. According to other epidemiologists (and just lay amateurs) who have built better models, 20% appears to be about the right threshold when taking into account non-homogenous social mixing and t-cell immunity. But you don't really need anything fancy to figure this out. Just look at the observed data, messy and contradictory though it is. When antibodies reach 20% the epidemic stops, in many places not just NY.