6 ms·

Not an expert by any means, but on a quick Google, it appears that the most aggressive estimate of how many people have gotten the virus is 10%[0]. Herd immunit

Not an expert by any means, but on a quick Google, it appears that the most aggressive estimate of how many people have gotten the virus is 10%[0]. Herd immunity requires a much, much higher number than that -- especially if we want our lives to go back to normal -- which is why you see the Rt rates[1] and rate of new cases going up very sharply, even if you account for the reporting lag. EDIT: This thread is already getting brigaded by people who apparently think of this as a hoax or some kind of conspiracy so I'm going to leave and take my citations and facts from the article with me. [0]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/covid-19-may-have-infected-10-percent-world-s-population-n1242118 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/covid-19-may-have-infecte... [1]: https://rt.live https://rt.live (US-centric)

henrikschroder 6y ago
> Herd immunity requires a much, much higher number than that The jury is very, very much out on that. The 70% number bandied about is extremely naively calculated, it assumes 0 pre-existing resistance or immunity (Which we now know exists), and it assumes all humans are homogenous sphere-shaped balls floating around in a gaseous society, which is also obviously not true. There are countless reports and studies on transmission among children in school settings, and they pretty much unilaterally state that there's very little spread happening there, contrary to everyone's "gut feeling" about kids being snot-nosed petri dishes.
- mattycakes 6y ago
  Yeah, the article completely disputes this point. I suggest you read the section titled "How high is the threshold for SARS-CoV-2?"
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    > Yeah, the article completely disputes this point. No, the article explicitly says "Estimates of the threshold for SARS-CoV-2 range from 10% to 70% or even more", and then it sort of handwaves away any studies showing lower numbers, and highlights the ones showing the higher numbers. That is pretty much the definition of the jury being out on the matter.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Moreover, this 70% number is based on SIR models, which observably do not match the dynamics of our predicament at all.
- exogeny 6y ago
  I'm going to guess you didn't read the article.
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    You guessed wrong.
    - exogeny 6y ago
      OK. New guess: you didn't understand it, or willingly choose not to understand it, because you've already made up your mind.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > (Which we now know exists), No we don't. You've misunderstood whatever you've read. > and they pretty much unilaterally state that there's very little spread happening there This is untrue. Just today: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/coronavirus-r-rate-school-closures-lockdown-lancet-study-b1251617.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/coronavirus-r-rat... (But there are many others showing that schools increase spread of covid).
  - lbeltrame 6y ago
    You might want to read the discussion section when they mention their modeling of schools. There is an important limitation to be wary of.

henrikschroder 6y ago

> Herd immunity requires a much, much higher number than that The jury is very, very much out on that. The 70% number bandied about is extremely naively calculated, it assumes 0 pre-existing resistance or immunity (Which we now know exists), and it assumes all humans are homogenous sphere-shaped balls floating around in a gaseous society, which is also obviously not true. There are countless reports and studies on transmission among children in school settings, and they pretty much unilaterally state that there's very little spread happening there, contrary to everyone's "gut feeling" about kids being snot-nosed petri dishes.

mattycakes 6y ago
Yeah, the article completely disputes this point. I suggest you read the section titled "How high is the threshold for SARS-CoV-2?"
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  > Yeah, the article completely disputes this point. No, the article explicitly says "Estimates of the threshold for SARS-CoV-2 range from 10% to 70% or even more", and then it sort of handwaves away any studies showing lower numbers, and highlights the ones showing the higher numbers. That is pretty much the definition of the jury being out on the matter.
xyzzyz 6y ago
Moreover, this 70% number is based on SIR models, which observably do not match the dynamics of our predicament at all.
exogeny 6y ago
I'm going to guess you didn't read the article.
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  You guessed wrong.
  - exogeny 6y ago
    OK. New guess: you didn't understand it, or willingly choose not to understand it, because you've already made up your mind.
DanBC 6y ago
> (Which we now know exists), No we don't. You've misunderstood whatever you've read. > and they pretty much unilaterally state that there's very little spread happening there This is untrue. Just today: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/coronavirus-r-rate-school-closures-lockdown-lancet-study-b1251617.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/coronavirus-r-rat... (But there are many others showing that schools increase spread of covid).
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  You might want to read the discussion section when they mention their modeling of schools. There is an important limitation to be wary of.