Based on the raw R0 of COVID-19 the minimum percentage set for herd immunity has been set for about 60%. No country is anywhere near this percentage at this point. I have always outlined that "R0" is dynamic. There are other names for R0 when mitigation is involved. R0 is normally the raw number. If you have good Contact tracing then you do not have to come close to testing everyone. South Korea proved this. You only have to test people close to the transmission chains. Multiple articles on Germany's successful response to COVID-19 can easily be found. You can start here - It was the saltshaker: How Germany meticulously traced its coronavirus outbreak https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020...meticulously-traced-its-coronavirus-outbreak/
you are logically inconsistent. one minute you telling me that RO is dynamic. which is new for you regardless of what you claim here. The next sentence you are implying that you know 60 percent is a good number because its tied to the raw RO. We don't know the raw RO or any other number so you don't know what it takes for herd immunity...
Scientists have already outlined the required percentage of the population that must be immune for herd immunity for COVID-19. Please feel free to look up their figures. The 60% minimum figure is based on their work. "The problem with herd immunity and the novel coronavirus is that the world is nowhere close to having widespread resistance to COVID-19, and is still a long way from developing it. Experts estimate that from 60% to upwards of 90% of a population must have immunity to a disease for it to stop spreading. Most countries affected by COVID-19 have not surpassed the 1% mark, including the US, which currently has the highest number of cases out of all countries." Likewise feel free to take a look at R0 calculations. R0 is the basic reproduction number. Rnaught has other associated numbers related to calculations involving mitigations. For example the effective reproduction number Re. There are an entire series of R associated numbers.
you keep speaking as if we have quality data which would allow any scientist to know what the RO is. The study you showed was based on bullshit data.. China's data was bullshit. The WHO data was created with garbage. China and Italy may have had a lot of latent TB. nobody knows the RO yet particularly because our populations are not the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number In populations that are not homogeneous, the definition of R0 is more subtle. The definition must account for the fact that a typical infected individual may not be an average individual.
So what do you think is the percentage of society that must be immune in order to provide COVID-19 herd immunity? Understanding that the lowest possible number is 50%. And tell us where we are now in terms of the percentage of society in the U.S. recovered from COVID-19 and hopefully immune. Keeping in mind that we are at under 2% according to most experts. We are at least 48% off (and probably 58% off) from having herd immunity in the U.S.
That is the point.... I don't know the R0. We have useless data. Plus, I have no idea how many people in society have already been exposed. I don't really care at this point about the theoretical R0 I want to figure out the effective rate for healthy people in each area of the country. We need to admit we don't know shit based on the data we have... We prevented hospital beds from being overwhelmed. Ok mission done. We should no longer stay closed down based on garbage models while we have plenty of hospital capacity. Job 1 of govt and scientists right now should be get tons of antibody tests on random samples of people, everyday... and reporting the results to us. Until we know how many currently healthy people have been exposed we have no science based reason to prefer shut to open. Its just a guess. After the healthy people are out and about... and we don't see a scary spike in hospital admits or death... then we begin to fully reopen. Continuing the shutdown in absence of a massive effort to collect and share useful data is mal-practice by science and govt. With knowledge the numerators and the R0 will take care of themselves. So in summary at this stage the burden should be on govt to show we should remain shut.... area by area. Test using antibody tests everyday... massively. (make sure we know which ones are accurate.) In 7 days... we examine. Then we can open or close based on real data rather than ignorance.
Correct! Shame this thread is stuck in Politics. "More than 20 percent of New York City residents tested positive for coronavirus antibodies in a study launched by Governor Cuomo which, if accurate, means as many as 1.7million people have been infected in the city - and that the mortality rate is between 0.6 and 0.8 percent, far greater than the 0.1 percent mortality rate of the flu."
A mere 3000 people were tested across the entire state... and only those who happened to be outside when the testers came around. They are extrapolating and jumping to great assumptions based on these results.
It is pretty consistent with other test results and studies. And pretty close to what i was expecting it to be based on all the data that was out there before today.
I am not seeing it consistent with other tests and studies. In Sweden with no lockdown they are estimated the percentage of their population infected in urban areas to be 3% to 10%.. What makes NY much greater?