Those are not per-capita stats, so cannot be used to compare and defend SD's approach vs. another states' approach.
Well the 7 day moving average of deaths in CA in 500 in South Dakota its 6. California has about 40 to 45 times as many people as South Dakota So you can see... California with all our non scientific lockdowns and and all that other Covid scare crap and mandatory mask wearing which is totally complied with indoors... is performing about 2 times worse than South Dakota right now... Yeah you can talk about demographics. You talk about population density You could talk about weather and sun...
wrong again you lying propagandist. This is just one of the studies you have seen and commented upon earlier. As I said I have also provided links to New York Times articles on the subject... Yet, you refuse to even acknowledge the idea that natural herd immunity could come in at lower levels because viruses do not infect at random and people have different susceptibility to getting a virus and spreading a virus. "One Sentence Summary: Models that curtail individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to infection overestimate epidemic sizes and herd immunity thresholds." ---- Abstract: As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spreads, the susceptible subpopulation is depleted causing the incidence of new cases to decline. Variation in individual susceptibility or exposure to infection exacerbates this effect. Individuals that are 25 more susceptible or more exposed tend to be infected earlier, depleting the susceptible subpopulation of those who are at higher risk of infection. This selective depletion of susceptibles intensifies the deceleration in incidence. Eventually, susceptible numbers become low enough to prevent epidemic growth or, in other words, the herd immunity threshold (HIT) is reached. Although estimates vary, simple calculations suggest that herd immunity to SARS30 CoV-2 requires 60-70% of the population to be immune. By fitting epidemiological models that allow for heterogeneity to SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks across the globe, we show that variation in susceptibility or exposure to infection reduces these estimates. Accurate measurements of heterogeneity are therefore of paramount importance in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v3.full.pdf The herd immunity threshold Individual variation in risk of acquiring infection is under selection by the force of infection, whether individual differences are due to biological susceptibility, physical exposure, or a 10 combination of the two traits. Selection results in the removal of the most at-risk individuals from the susceptible pool as they become infected and eventually recover (some die). This selective acquisition of infection and immunity results simultaneously in decelerated epidemic growth and accelerated induction of immunity in the population. The herd immunity threshold (HIT) defines the percentage of the population that needs to be immune to reverse epidemic 15 growth and prevent future waves. Figure 3 shows the expected downward trends in the HIT for SARS-CoV-2 as the coefficients of variation of the gamma distributed susceptibility or exposure are increased between 0 and 4 (to assess robustness to changing the type of distribution see Figure S22 for equivalent plots with lognormal distributions). While herd immunity is expected to require 60-70% of a homogeneous population to be immune given an �! between 2.5 and 3, 20 these percentages drop to the range 10-20% for CVs between 2 and 4. Therefore, a critically important question is: how variable are humans in their susceptibility and exposure to SARSCoV-2? Hitherto, there is no definite answer to this question. ... Discussion The concept of herd immunity is most commonly used in the design of vaccination programs (12, 13). Defining the percentage of the population that must be immune to cause infection incidences to decline, herd immunity thresholds constitute convenient targets for vaccination coverage. In 25 idealized scenarios of vaccines delivered at random and individuals mixing at random, herd immunity thresholds are given by a simple formula (1 − 1⁄�!) which, in the case of SARSCoV-2, suggests that 60-70% of the population would need be immunized to halt spread considering estimates of �! between 2.5 and 3. A crucial caveat in exporting these calculations to immunization by natural infection is that natural infection does not occur at random. 30 Individuals who are more susceptible or more exposed are more prone to be infected and become immune, which lowers the threshold (14). In our model, the herd immunity threshold declines sharply when coefficients of variation increase from 0 to 2 and remains below 20% for more variable populations. The amplitude of the decline depends on what property is heterogeneous and how it is distributed but the downwards trend is robust (Figures 3 and S22) .... Authors: M. Gabriela M. Gomes1,2,3*, Rodrigo M. Corder4 , Jessica G. King5 , Kate E. Langwig6 , Caetano Souto-Maior7 , Jorge Carneiro8 , Guilherme Gonçalves9 , Carlos Penha-Gonçalves8 , Marcelo U. Ferreira4 , Ricardo Aguas10 5 . 1 Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom. 2 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom. 3 Centro de Matemática da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal. 4 10 Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 5 Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 6 Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA. 7 Laboratory of Systems Genetics, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 8 15 Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal. 9 Unidade Multidisciplinar de Investigação Biomédica, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal. 10 Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 20 *Correspondence to: gabriela.gomes@strath.ac.
Thought it was time to look at Texas and Florida and see the effects of herd immunity for the healthy and vaccine immunity beginning to kick in for the elderly... https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/texas now remember the sob haters have been telling you that florida is the king of variants... so why is it doing as well as many other states... I think its pretty obvious what the 1 answer could be... It could be its far better to have your healthy people out and about and keeping their immunity up... Places like Texas and Florida are continue to improve while lock down countries over in Europe are having to lock down again because their people keep losing their immunity.
The Natural Herd Immunity folks just can not let it go that the world has been moving along the route of Vaccinated Herd Immunity without them. A large % of them are spewing misinformation about vaccinations around the world as if they're having a temper tantrum. By year end, the only people without herd immunity will be the folks left to infect each other with Covid. In addition, they will be denied access to services or forced to wear a face mask (e.g. international air travel) while the rest of the world gets back to normal. A fitting end to their misinformation campaign that would have cost many times more lives than today's numbers. wrbtrader