4 ms·
This makes a fractional difference at most. And, I disagree on the following grounds - Let's say we assume the point of herd immunity is when 60% are infected
by throwaway2245 6y ago
This makes a fractional difference at most. And, I disagree on the following grounds -
Let's say we assume the point of herd immunity is when 60% are infected (which I also doubt: models were not taking into account superspreading events when this was established as an estimate)
Then we can agree that if ~60% of the population is seropositive and no longer infectious, everyone (everyone else) is now safe. Cool.
However, if there is uncontrolled infection, then we reach the 60% mark of herd immunity, you bust through that ceiling because most people are still infectious and continuing to infect others.
- jtbayly 6y agoHerd immunity will be reached at a percent of the population being infected. What percent that is depends on a lot of factors, including the rate of infection (R0), the length of contagion, etc. Nevertheless, herd immunity will be reached at less than 100% infected with Covid-19. I'm not saying that it will be as low as 60%. I highly doubt that. I'd say closer to 80-85%, as a guess based on my simplistic math. I'm no epidemiologist. Then again, neither are you, I'm guessing. :) Months ago there was a fascinating link on HN that had models you could play with to adjust all the variables in a simple model. You should find it and play around. I'll try to find a link when I can come back to this later.
- throwaway2245 6y agoOK, I get you. In my model of no changed behaviour, people who are coincidentally isolated during the final weeks of virulent spread might ultimately avoid infection. That's still going to be 99%, 98% infected? 95% seems doubtful to me under that model - but perhaps you are right. 100% with a rounding error.
- jtbayly 6y agoYour model is absurd. In what world would nobody change their behavior?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]