WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 24507192

(no title)

ArkVark | 5 years ago

The simplest explanation for Madrid is that it locked down too early, and herd immunity (which seems to occur at about 20-25%, based on Antibody testing of New York and Sweden) was never reached.

Lockdown also seems to increase the threshold for herd immunity and increase deaths, by dramatically changing the demographics of who is infected. Without lockdown, the youngest and most mobile people are likely to be infected - with minimal/zero deaths since COVID mortality is incredibly age dependent.

Under lockdown, those people are at home and intermingling with family. The only 'social' activity is shopping for food, leading to an unnatural mingling of old and young.

I live in Ukraine which has masks and little else against COVID. In shopping centers particularly in the evenings there are essentially zero old people - they fear for their lives, as they should.

The most effective policy we could have adopted was 6AM-10AM public transport and shopping for the aged only, and everyone else from then on. Segregate the elderly population into the mornings and let the masses in in the afternoon. This might have required shifting school and work to later hours in the day for three months, which seems a minor inconvenience.

discuss

order

michaelmrose|5 years ago

Nobody credible believes 20-25% is a likely threshold for herd immunity. You cannot Realistically in America isolate the old from the young and if the young spread it like wildfire the old get sick.

Literally everything in your post is as poorly considered. It's important not to spread misinformation.

T-hawk|5 years ago

It's 20%-25% of currently detectable antibodies, coupled with another 20%-50% from prior coronaviruses or other cross-immunity. That's the important distinction. The sum approaches the 50%-70% needed for herd resistance based on 1-1/R0. That's the point of this article.

millettjon|5 years ago

See: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200731/Research-suggests...

In addition to immunity based on T cells, the HIT depends on how individuals are networked. The original 60-70% estimates were based on 100% of people being vulnerable and also a random distribution of individuals interacting. In reality a small fraction of the population will have many interactions and once they become immune those transmission vectors away and the average R number drops. So based on the latest research plus observations of the worst hit places, 20-25% seems plausible.