3 ms·

Further, there was an argument way back, that the number infected but symptom-free was much higher than estimated. This would be enhanced by a hypothesised vari

Further, there was an argument way back, that the number infected but symptom-free was much higher than estimated. This would be enhanced by a hypothesised variant, that is more contagious, but less harmful - it would theoretically dominate, because its spread would be unimpeded. I don't know if these arguments have been tested; nor how to test them. Separately, the physical social graph is not uniform, but complex. There can easily be narrower channels that have a lower probability of conducting infection. Thus, the spread will slow after the easy routes have been exploited.

vkou 5y ago
> Further, there was an argument way back, that the number infected but symptom-free was much higher than estimated. This argument was made many, many times over the past year and a half by people insisting that <their area has hit herd immunity and everything is fine and we can fully re-open>. Inevitably, like clockwork, the wave of COVID that would follow would dwarf the previous one. The only thing that has broken this pattern has been mass vaccinations. It seems that high rate of antibody sero-prevalence in the population only protects you from COVID on paper.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  See North and South Dakota, who after initially receiving a first huge wave before there were vaccines, never encountered any significant second wave. They are the best candidates I've seen for a possible herd immunity all the way back to December. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/north-dakota/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/north-dakota/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/south-dakota/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/south-dakota/
  - owenversteeg 5y ago
    Interesting! That does look promising. South Dakota has 762k people and 125k positive tests. The CDC assumes that 1 in 4.2 infections were reported, so that would be 525k people infected total. 52.8% of people got vaccinated. Assuming there's no correlation between getting vaccinated and getting infected (which I'd assume isn't 100% correct), you can assume that of the 295k uninfected, 156k got vaccinated. So that'd be a total of 525k infected+156k vaccinated and not infected = 681k = 89.4% immunity.

vkou 5y ago

> Further, there was an argument way back, that the number infected but symptom-free was much higher than estimated. This argument was made many, many times over the past year and a half by people insisting that <their area has hit herd immunity and everything is fine and we can fully re-open>. Inevitably, like clockwork, the wave of COVID that would follow would dwarf the previous one. The only thing that has broken this pattern has been mass vaccinations. It seems that high rate of antibody sero-prevalence in the population only protects you from COVID on paper.

reducesuffering 5y ago
See North and South Dakota, who after initially receiving a first huge wave before there were vaccines, never encountered any significant second wave. They are the best candidates I've seen for a possible herd immunity all the way back to December. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/north-dakota/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/north-dakota/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/south-dakota/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/south-dakota/
- owenversteeg 5y ago
  Interesting! That does look promising. South Dakota has 762k people and 125k positive tests. The CDC assumes that 1 in 4.2 infections were reported, so that would be 525k people infected total. 52.8% of people got vaccinated. Assuming there's no correlation between getting vaccinated and getting infected (which I'd assume isn't 100% correct), you can assume that of the 295k uninfected, 156k got vaccinated. So that'd be a total of 525k infected+156k vaccinated and not infected = 681k = 89.4% immunity.