Huge percentage of positive antibody tests in NY

4,594 Views | 29 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by eric76
Not a Bot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:39a, 7/11/20
AG
Really interesting article talking about the seroprevalence of antibodies in some neighborhoods of New York. Some of them are apparently now pushing past 60%. No, they did not explain their methodology so take with a grain of salt.

Previous studies suggested around 20% of New York residents had likely been exposed or infected, but in some neighborhoods that percentage was much much higher.

This may help explain why New York has not experienced a huge outbreak after the protests. Neighborhoods such as Flatbush which showed the most protest activity had possibly already been massively infected in March and April.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/nyregion/nyc-coronavirus-antibodies.html

Interesting also that some of the other major outbreak cities in March/April are not experiencing relapse at the same rate that other states who were more lightly affected early on. This *could* indicate that a much higher percentage of those early outbreak populations was infected than previously thought.
Reply Quote
2
DadHammer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Not a Bot • 7:11a, 7/11/20
AG
Makes sense and is great news. Let's hope we are getting close to herd immunity.

Reply Quote
16
Spaulding
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:41a, 7/11/20
Even at 20% ,which I believe is probably more likely, that would blunt the spread and also in most of tha hard hit areas I would imagine those people are more serious about social distancing ,mask wearing , and hand washing. Given the studies in Milan and parts of Spain I seriously doubt anywhere is significantly over 30% exposure rates
Reply Quote
1
wreckncrew
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:04a, 7/11/20
AG
Here's a question that I am curious to hear people's opinion on. I am going to try and keep it concise because I'm just a simple man.

Correct me of I'm wrong but statistically, I have seen (maybe this was early on) that 80% of the cases were asymptomatic. People just didn't show any symptoms but may have been spreading it to other people. My questions are:

1. Does this mean that 80% of people have the immune system to fight off this virus therefore they are going to be ok?

2. If 80% of people are "immune" or able to fight the virus off naturally, does this mean that the percentage needed to achieve herd community is much lower that what we first thought? Could herd community be closer to 15%?

I know there is so much more to this than my mind can probably comprehend, but this is something that I have thought about. And if this is the case, then once we get past this peak, then cases should drop like they are in NY.

I dont know. Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but if the 80% is true then could we be close to the end?

Just my quick thoughts. I look forward to hearing from some of our docs on this.
Reply Quote
amercer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:09a, 7/11/20
AG
"At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies."

My take from this is that most of the country is probably more like 1%
Reply Quote
1
DadHammer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wreckncrew • 11:30a, 7/11/20
AG
You may not be far off. Some scientists, taking that into account, are saying 20-25% is all that we need for herd immunity. I guess we will know in a few months who is right.
Reply Quote
2
Agsrback12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:36a, 7/11/20
This combined with those without antibodies but t-Cell memory immunity, and 99% survival rate sure makes one wonder why some are pushing for an other shutdown.

Something is going on and it is shady as can be.
Reply Quote
5
Complete Idiot
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:21p, 7/11/20
Posted the results of a very large study in Spain just the other day - I was disappointed to read they only discovered 5% of the population with antibodies(https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31483-5/fulltext ). A few things to consider - antibody tests are not all the same and may have different results, some studies have shown a large percentage of people known to have had the virus still did not test positive for antibodies (a different study than the Spain study). So who knows, I like data but I've seen too much data conflict and it is challenging to draw a strong conclusion.

If we think herd immunity may kick in around 20%, which I was starting to believe a bit in looking at data from a few counties were I felt there were outbreaks, then it doesn't make sense to see this study where 50% of a population in a tight area are shown to have antibodies.

One thing that does make me believe this study showing up to around 60% with antibodies is the incredible death count attributed to Covid in NYC. Deaths per million is sky high in NYC and surrounding areas, twice as high as Belgium and almost three times as high as the UK. Maybe the outbreak was worse in NYC than any other area in the world?
Reply Quote
Spaulding
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wreckncrew • 2:39p, 7/11/20
Yes their immune system is robust enough to successfully defeat the virus BUT
it is possible that their exposure was very small which is why their immune system was successful. The number of dead health care workers supports the idea that the more significant the exposure the more likely your immune system will not defeat the virus.

No determination has been made regarding durable immunity
Reply Quote
4
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DadHammer • 5:15p, 7/11/20
AG
DadHammer said:
You may not be far off. Some scientists, taking that into account, are saying 20-25% is all that we need for herd immunity. I guess we will know in a few months who is right.
Cites?

They say that the bigger question is whether we can ever reach herd immunity.

25% does not sound at all right.

Keep in mind that to reach herd immunity in something like the measles, it takes more than 90%. I'm not at all sure that 50% to 60% is reasonable.
Reply Quote
1
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Agsrback12 • 5:16p, 7/11/20
AG
Agsrback12 said:
This combined with those without antibodies but t-Cell memory immunity, and 99% survival rate sure makes one wonder why some are pushing for an other shutdown.

Something is going on and it is shady as can be.
If people would behave responsibly, then the magnitude of the problem would likely be far less and so the calls for a shutdown would be more likely to fall on deaf ears.
Reply Quote
1
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Complete Idiot • 5:18p, 7/11/20
AG
Complete Idiot said:
Posted the results of a very large study in Spain just the other day - I was disappointed to read they only discovered 5% of the population with antibodies(https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31483-5/fulltext ). A few things to consider - antibody tests are not all the same and may have different results, some studies have shown a large percentage of people known to have had the virus still did not test positive for antibodies (a different study than the Spain study). So who knows, I like data but I've seen too much data conflict and it is challenging to draw a strong conclusion.

If we think herd immunity may kick in around 20%, which I was starting to believe a bit in looking at data from a few counties were I felt there were outbreaks, then it doesn't make sense to see this study where 50% of a population in a tight area are shown to have antibodies.

One thing that does make me believe this study showing up to around 60% with antibodies is the incredible death count attributed to Covid in NYC. Deaths per million is sky high in NYC and surrounding areas, twice as high as Belgium and almost three times as high as the UK. Maybe the outbreak was worse in NYC than any other area in the world?
Keep in mind that the reported 68% was in clinics where people were seeking tests for antibodies. Unless people are just randomly going in for testing with no regards for whether they had already had covid-19, the 68% is hardly the percentage of the community at large.
Reply Quote
6
HotardAg07
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:50p, 7/11/20
AG
20% with social distancing measures and mask wearing could be enough to keep R<1 long term. The latter part should be emphasized in case people think the former is all that would be required.
Reply Quote
1
DadHammer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 7:05a, 7/12/20
AG
Eric76

Just do a search, you can find a study that just about meets any number you want seems like now. Someone posted a few videos on threads explaining it but not sure where now.

We will not know the real number for a while. If you look at the countries just about over covid 19, France, Italy, Sweden, Spain, etc.. it burned out in about 12 weeks after major infection rate started.

T cells and covid antibodies will need to be studied. Either way, many more people were infected than measured so far or herd immunity is way lower. Has to be one of the two. None of those countries are having reinfections either so immunity of some form is occurring.

Reply Quote
1
1 edit
dragmagpuff
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:09a, 7/12/20
AG
I keep seeing people claiming that the primary reason European Countries are having success against the virus is due to their herd immunity slowing things down.

But based on antibody studies, some of the hardest hit countries over there have significantly less antibody presence than places like New York city (Spain at 5%, NYC at 20% for example). There are definitely smaller European countries that shutdown after smaller case counts cases that have kept the virus down while resuming economic activity.

I am very worried that we are ignoring the fact that those countries all have robust public health services that are well coordinated at the federal level. That could be a very important variable in a country's success.

It feels like in most of Europe, they said : What do we need to do in order to control the virus to get back to normal?

In the US, we said: How do we get back to normal with the virus spreading?

And now a country like Germany has been slowly reopening and only had 267 new cases yesterday with over 100 tests done per positive case (and has been playing sports for over a month), but we have almost 60,000 new cases with only 12 tests per positive case.



Reply Quote
4
1 edit
terradactylexpress
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dragmagpuff • 9:12a, 7/12/20
Agreed completely. Our bumbling approach to this puts us at a significant risk of causing even more harm to our economy and having to catch up to the rest of the world
Reply Quote
6
DadHammer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dragmagpuff • 10:15a, 7/12/20
AG
UK, Italy, Spain, France do not have even close to our health care capabilities.



Reply Quote
3
ktc83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:27a, 7/12/20
AG
Much of Europe went through what appears to be the worst part of this earlier than the US. The UK, Spain, France, Belgium, Italy, and Sweden all have significantly higher death rates per population than the US at this point. On average about 50% higher with about half of the reported cases. Some European countries have faired really well like Germany and Austria. I guess time will tell how all of this ends up.
Reply Quote
2
dragmagpuff
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DadHammer • 10:40a, 7/12/20
AG
DadHammer said:
UK, Italy, Spain, France do not have even close to our health care capabilities.
I'm talking centralized public health agencies that can coordinate a unified national response with testing and contact tracing. I agree that we have greater healthcare capacity to treat people with the virus but that capacity doesn't really affect preventative measures like contact tracing. As many countries have shown, the virus can be contained with contact tracing and reasonable measures.




Reply Quote
4
DTP02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:44a, 7/12/20
AG
The trends all across the world are pretty consistent: big spike followed by much less prevalence despite different mitigation efforts being used.

Whether it's the T-cell response that isn't captured in antibodies tests or some inherent immunity, this thing seems to subside significantly after much lower confirmed infection rates than expected. And the mitigation efforts don't seem to be the determining factor, although they absolutely can be a contributing factor.

The thing that is throwing people off about the US is that much of the country is just now experiencing its first wave.
Reply Quote
1
SirLurksALot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HotardAg07 • 10:44a, 7/12/20
HotardAg07 said:
20% with social distancing measures and mask wearing could be enough to keep R<1 long term. The latter part should be emphasized in case people think the former is all that would be required.


Long term social distancing measures are unacceptable. The benefit provided is not worth the damage caused.
Reply Quote
6
Ragoo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dragmagpuff • 10:51a, 7/12/20
AG
267 x 100 versus 60,000 x 12

Orders of magnitude difference in testing...
Reply Quote
dragmagpuff
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ragoo • 11:04a, 7/12/20
AG
Ragoo said:
267 x 100 versus 60,000 x 12

Orders of magnitude difference in testing...
Yes, we are testing way more in raw numbers. We also have more people.

If Germany is having to test 112 people to find 1 positive case, what do you think would happen if they started testing twice as much?

Do you think that Germany is hiding their "real" numbers?

They are clearly able to find a greater percentage of their actual cases than we are.


Reply Quote
1 edit
Ragoo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dragmagpuff • 11:06a, 7/12/20
AG
dragmagpuff said:
Ragoo said:
267 x 100 versus 60,000 x 12

Orders of magnitude difference in testing...
Yes, we are testing way more in raw numbers. We also have more people.

If Germany is having to test 112 people to find 1 positive case, what do you think would happen if they started testing twice as much?

Do you think that Germany is hiding their "real" numbers?

They are clearly able to find a greater percentage of their actual cases than we are.


i think the data is very very selective and the comparison is not reasonable.
Reply Quote
dragmagpuff
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ragoo • 11:16a, 7/12/20
AG
Ragoo said:
dragmagpuff said:
Ragoo said:
267 x 100 versus 60,000 x 12

Orders of magnitude difference in testing...
Yes, we are testing way more in raw numbers. We also have more people.

If Germany is having to test 112 people to find 1 positive case, what do you think would happen if they started testing twice as much?

Do you think that Germany is hiding their "real" numbers?

They are clearly able to find a greater percentage of their actual cases than we are.


i think the data is very very selective and the comparison is not reasonable.
Are you saying that if Germany tested 600,000 people per day, they would find 10s of thousands of positives?

That seems highly unlikely that their positivity rate would increase from under 1% if they increased testing. If anything, it should go down.
Reply Quote
Ragoo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dragmagpuff • 11:27a, 7/12/20
AG
dragmagpuff said:
Ragoo said:
dragmagpuff said:
Ragoo said:
267 x 100 versus 60,000 x 12

Orders of magnitude difference in testing...
Yes, we are testing way more in raw numbers. We also have more people.

If Germany is having to test 112 people to find 1 positive case, what do you think would happen if they started testing twice as much?

Do you think that Germany is hiding their "real" numbers?

They are clearly able to find a greater percentage of their actual cases than we are.


i think the data is very very selective and the comparison is not reasonable.
Are you saying that if Germany tested 600,000 people per day, they would find 10s of thousands of positives?

That seems highly unlikely that their positivity rate would increase from under 1% if they increased testing. If anything, it should go down.
1 in 100 to me sounds like a different approach to testing than 1 in 12. Are there really 99 out of 100 tests who are "sick" such that they need to get tested out of concern?

This doesn't seem reasonable. In fact I would expect the positive to test ratio to be pretty high. The test is a confirmation tool.

So in my reasoning something seems "off" with the two approaches And therefore ridiculous to compare. Makes sense being very different cultures, thousands of miles apart.
Reply Quote
dragmagpuff
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ragoo • 11:44a, 7/12/20
AG
Ragoo said:
dragmagpuff said:
Ragoo said:
dragmagpuff said:
Ragoo said:
267 x 100 versus 60,000 x 12

Orders of magnitude difference in testing...
Yes, we are testing way more in raw numbers. We also have more people.

If Germany is having to test 112 people to find 1 positive case, what do you think would happen if they started testing twice as much?

Do you think that Germany is hiding their "real" numbers?

They are clearly able to find a greater percentage of their actual cases than we are.


i think the data is very very selective and the comparison is not reasonable.
Are you saying that if Germany tested 600,000 people per day, they would find 10s of thousands of positives?

That seems highly unlikely that their positivity rate would increase from under 1% if they increased testing. If anything, it should go down.
1 in 100 to me sounds like a different approach to testing than 1 in 12. Are there really 99 out of 100 tests who are "sick" such that they need to get tested out of concern?

This doesn't seem reasonable. In fact I would expect the positive to test ratio to be pretty high. The test is a confirmation tool.

So in my reasoning something seems "off" with the two approaches And therefore ridiculous to compare. Makes sense being very different cultures, thousands of miles apart.
I think it's fairly obvious that Germany can afford to have a proactive testing strategy.

For example, in my office, we had a employee test positive. In Germany, they can quickly test the entire company to find as many of the potential cases as possible, and then just quarantine those people, and then test their contacts.

By getting as many potential virus spreaders off the street, they are able to open up the country without major spikes.

In the US, my entire office is instead having to shutdown for 2 weeks because the tests are needed for people showing coronavirus symptoms. For all I know, I may be an asymptomatic or presymptomatic case that Germany would have found, but the US probably won't.

And while I am in this two week self-quarantine, my economic activity has decreased. Or, if I do go get take out, I am increasing my chance to spread the virus to someone else.

For this reason, it seems fairly obvious that Germany has the ability to find more asymptomatic cases, and thus a greater fraction of the true cases. If Germany was only testing "sick" people, I would expect their case count to be even lower.

Reply Quote
2
Ragoo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dragmagpuff • 11:48a, 7/12/20
AG
dragmagpuff said:
Ragoo said:
dragmagpuff said:
Ragoo said:
dragmagpuff said:
Ragoo said:
267 x 100 versus 60,000 x 12

Orders of magnitude difference in testing...
Yes, we are testing way more in raw numbers. We also have more people.

If Germany is having to test 112 people to find 1 positive case, what do you think would happen if they started testing twice as much?

Do you think that Germany is hiding their "real" numbers?

They are clearly able to find a greater percentage of their actual cases than we are.


i think the data is very very selective and the comparison is not reasonable.
Are you saying that if Germany tested 600,000 people per day, they would find 10s of thousands of positives?

That seems highly unlikely that their positivity rate would increase from under 1% if they increased testing. If anything, it should go down.
1 in 100 to me sounds like a different approach to testing than 1 in 12. Are there really 99 out of 100 tests who are "sick" such that they need to get tested out of concern?

This doesn't seem reasonable. In fact I would expect the positive to test ratio to be pretty high. The test is a confirmation tool.

So in my reasoning something seems "off" with the two approaches And therefore ridiculous to compare. Makes sense being very different cultures, thousands of miles apart.
I think it's fairly obvious that Germany can afford to have a proactive testing strategy.

For example, in my office, we had a employee test positive. In Germany, they can quickly test the entire company to find as many of the potential cases as possible, and then just quarantine those people, and then test their contacts.

By getting as many potential virus spreaders off the street, they are able to open up the country without major spikes.

In the US, my entire office is instead having to shutdown for 2 weeks because the tests are needed for people showing coronavirus symptoms. For all I know, I may be an asymptomatic or presymptomatic case that Germany would have found, but the US probably won't.

And while I am in this two week self-quarantine, my economic activity has decreased. Or, if I do go get take out, I am increasing my chance to spread the virus to someone else.

For this reason, it seems fairly obvious that Germany has the ability to find more asymptomatic cases, and thus a greater fraction of the true cases. If Germany was only testing "sick" people, I would expect their case count to be even lower.

26,000 tests per day doesn't tell me "test and entire company". But maybe

My point is here we are primarily testing sick people in an on demand response.

The US is testing a higher percentage f the population than Germany.

760,000/330,000,000 versus 26,000/82,000,000
Reply Quote
dragmagpuff
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ragoo • 12:04p, 7/12/20
AG
Ragoo said:
dragmagpuff said:
Ragoo said:
dragmagpuff said:
Ragoo said:
dragmagpuff said:
Ragoo said:
267 x 100 versus 60,000 x 12

Orders of magnitude difference in testing...
Yes, we are testing way more in raw numbers. We also have more people.

If Germany is having to test 112 people to find 1 positive case, what do you think would happen if they started testing twice as much?

Do you think that Germany is hiding their "real" numbers?

They are clearly able to find a greater percentage of their actual cases than we are.


i think the data is very very selective and the comparison is not reasonable.
Are you saying that if Germany tested 600,000 people per day, they would find 10s of thousands of positives?

That seems highly unlikely that their positivity rate would increase from under 1% if they increased testing. If anything, it should go down.
1 in 100 to me sounds like a different approach to testing than 1 in 12. Are there really 99 out of 100 tests who are "sick" such that they need to get tested out of concern?

This doesn't seem reasonable. In fact I would expect the positive to test ratio to be pretty high. The test is a confirmation tool.

So in my reasoning something seems "off" with the two approaches And therefore ridiculous to compare. Makes sense being very different cultures, thousands of miles apart.
I think it's fairly obvious that Germany can afford to have a proactive testing strategy.

For example, in my office, we had a employee test positive. In Germany, they can quickly test the entire company to find as many of the potential cases as possible, and then just quarantine those people, and then test their contacts.

By getting as many potential virus spreaders off the street, they are able to open up the country without major spikes.

In the US, my entire office is instead having to shutdown for 2 weeks because the tests are needed for people showing coronavirus symptoms. For all I know, I may be an asymptomatic or presymptomatic case that Germany would have found, but the US probably won't.

And while I am in this two week self-quarantine, my economic activity has decreased. Or, if I do go get take out, I am increasing my chance to spread the virus to someone else.

For this reason, it seems fairly obvious that Germany has the ability to find more asymptomatic cases, and thus a greater fraction of the true cases. If Germany was only testing "sick" people, I would expect their case count to be even lower.

26,000 tests per day doesn't tell me "test and entire company". But maybe

My point is here we are primarily testing sick people in an on demand response.

The US is testing a higher percentage f the population than Germany.

760,000/330,000,000 versus 26,000/82,000,000
I agree with your facts. My company has only 25 people for reference, not hundreds, so it seems reasonable considering that Germany is testing 112 people per positive case.

My point is that since we are primarily testing symptomatic people, and Germany is testing all the sick people as well as people who came into contact with the positive case, the ratio between the true number of cases and reported cases is much worse in the US.

My conclusion from this data is that the United States is missing way more cases than Germany by pretty much any metric. It's not like Germany is only testing in one city, and ignoring the rest of the country. I'm confused what your conclusion is.

In what world does having broader testing criteria mean that you miss more cases?
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DadHammer • 1:35p, 7/12/20
AG
DadHammer said:
Eric76

Just do a search, you can find a study that just about meets any number you want seems like now. Someone posted a few videos on threads explaining it but not sure where now.

We will not know the real number for a while. If you look at the countries just about over covid 19, France, Italy, Sweden, Spain, etc.. it burned out in about 12 weeks after major infection rate started.

T cells and covid antibodies will need to be studied. Either way, many more people were infected than measured so far or herd immunity is way lower. Has to be one of the two. None of those countries are having reinfections either so immunity of some form is occurring.

It helps to pay close attention to their various assumptions, both explicit and implicit, used to come up with the number.

Also, there won't be any one "real number". For a packed basketball arena, I would bet that herd immunity would need at least 90% to be immune. In a maximum shutdown, the percentage of people being immune to reach herd immunity might be something like 10%.

A great deal will really depend on things like population density and what people do to avoid the outbreak. The more people effectively social distance and take other precautions, the lower the number will likely be, in general.

You mention France, Italy, Sweden, and Spain as examples. Are the people in these countries practicing better social distancing now? Are they taking precautions to avoid getting it? If so, then the herd immunity would likely require a far lower percentage of the population to be immune than if they were making no effort at all.
Reply Quote
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DTP02 • 1:40p, 7/12/20
AG
DTP02 said:
The trends all across the world are pretty consistent: big spike followed by much less prevalence despite different mitigation efforts being used.

Whether it's the T-cell response that isn't captured in antibodies tests or some inherent immunity, this thing seems to subside significantly after much lower confirmed infection rates than expected. And the mitigation efforts don't seem to be the determining factor, although they absolutely can be a contributing factor.

The thing that is throwing people off about the US is that much of the country is just now experiencing its first wave.
Is anyone experiencing a second wave? It seems likely to me that everyone is still in the first wave.

The most likely explanation for a big spike followed by much less prevalence is that people start taking precautions to try to avoid it.
Reply Quote
1
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.