5 ms·
That would be at around 80%, the US got going in April, so that was 8 months, so another 24 months and we should be there, assuming no change in spread rate (se
by LatteLazy 6y ago
That would be at around 80%, the US got going in April, so that was 8 months, so another 24 months and we should be there, assuming no change in spread rate (seems unlikely but Im a rando off the net so what do I know?)
- pjc50 6y agoAnother 24 months at 3,000 deaths per day, would be approximately two million people or one New Mexico.
- totony 6y agoWhere did you get 80% from? A nature article seemed to suggest anywhere from ~50% to 70%
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoWhy do you say 80%? What's your value of R0 (before people changed behavior, to the degree that they did)? In my (admittedly naive) thinking, if R0 was 2, say, then if 50% of the people got it (and were therefore not able to get it again, and therefore not able to spread it), then the effective R0 would be 1.
- LatteLazy 6y agoI picked 80 because it was 4 times the 20% we already got. I wasn't really trying to be accurate, I think we'd need to look at an exponential as the R value drops as the already infected rate goes up? Not sure... :) Isn't the R0 for "no restrictions" something like 15? So I'd guess we'd need 93%? But I also have seen figures from 50 to 95% quoted for herd immunity so who knows?
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoNo, it's nowhere near 15. Measles is 12, and measles is far worse than Covid. I seem to recall seeing 1.3 for Covid, but that could have been after masking, quarantining, or both. Anyone with real numbers, feel free to supply them...
- ddingus 6y agoThey can get it again. Immunity varies, but is not permanent.