Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only a few months obviously. It didn't start there until March. But just because antibodies fade that doesn't mean T cell immunity isn't there.
Quote:
New research from Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital shows that many people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 demonstrate so-called T-cell-mediated immunity to the new coronavirus, even if they have not tested positively for antibodies
Lancet just had to retract a study recently. Hopefully this one is flawed too. It contradicts the Wake Forrest study from a few days ago that showed 12-14% of people in North Carolina had antibodies. And North Carolina hasn't even been hit that hard.
Lancet just had to retract a study recently. Hopefully this one is flawed too. It contradicts the Wake Forrest study from a few days ago that showed 12-14% of people in North Carolina had antibodies. And North Carolina hasn't even been hit that hard.
That's basically impossible. Where was it published?
Guesses on the rates of death vary, but widely accepted as something between 0.1 and 0.5%.
At 0.1%, 1.5 Million People - or 15% - have been infected. That seems high, and the 0.1% seems low using other data - but on the whole - an estimate 12-14% is not at all impossible, just based on the numbers.
To whatever degree you "believe" in herd immunity - not even close.
I didn't need a study or any testing to come up with those numbers, and Wake Forrest didn't either. But they did the legwork - and reached the same conclusion. So - seems plausible at least.
There have been some studies out there showing it might be significantly lower than that and
Webmd "estimates" a r value between 2 and 3.
The actual data suggest it is far lower https://rt.live/
The value 2-3 (actually probably higher) is you don't do anything, let it run amok.
When you apply mitigation strategies: distancing, masks, shutdowns, tracing, isolation, and so on, the virus contact number drops, so what you see is much lower. Rt is also lowered by the fact the the susceptible population decreases with time (but for now, that's a relatively small correction, except places like NYC)
And of course even the initial or the intrinsic reproduction number is dependent on the locale. E.g. NYC would have a much higher initial value compared to wherever else in US.
P.S. This particular website currently (and going a month back) lists Rt above 1.0 for NY which is highly unlikely
To add: so with all the countermeasures in place, you can get to an "effective" herd immunity at a significantly lower percentage but you have to keep the measures in place. And it goes on for a long time.
A better way is to lower the contact number below 1.0. Then you start seeing the decay of the number of active cases right away.
Guesses on the rates of death vary, but widely accepted as something between 0.1 and 0.5%.
At 0.1%, 1.5 Million People - or 15% - have been infected. That seems high, and the 0.1% seems low using other data - but on the whole - an estimate 12-14% is not at all impossible, just based on the numbers.
To whatever degree you "believe" in herd immunity - not even close.
I didn't need a study or any testing to come up with those numbers, and Wake Forrest didn't either. But they did the legwork - and reached the same conclusion. So - seems plausible at least.
Death rate of 0.1% would mean that NY had 32 million (out of 20 mil) people infected. And, yes, the death rates were higher early, now the treatments are much better but still
Death rate of 0.1% would mean that NY had 32 million (out of 20 mil) people infected. And, yes, the death rates were higher early, now the treatments are much better but still
The higher death rate in NY has to do with the poor job they did in "flattening the curve". They were just about the only place in the country where hospitals were completely overwhelmed by cases. Also a result of the absolutely awful job they did flattening the curve was that they had their surge in cases far before more effective strategies were developed to fight the virus.
Other places handled the virus much better, so they didn't have anywhere near as many needless deaths from what is a relatively harmless virus. The same happened in northern Italy. If you do a poor enough job, you can make COVID-19 a real nightmare....for example if you enact policies like Governor Cuomo did that ensured the spread of the virus among the most at risk groups.
Yes - totally agree - in fact, I posted many times that 0.1% was far too low, as it means all of NY would have to be infected. BUT - 0.25 is not out of the question, nor is 0.5 - brings the NC percent down to 7 or 8 % - but still doesn't take 12% off the table.
This is because it's at least possible that the death rate was higher in NY back then - demographics, or early version, or pre-mutation, or bad treatments, or whatever - but now is actually at 0.1% - so it's really tough to say, but I don't think it's impossible that 12% is the number of infections.
Many - many - variables. For instance -of all the people who threw caution to the wind lately, logic says it was more young people than old. It means more illness...but less death. Death rate drops. Lots of variables.
No simple answers. But the numbers say 12% is at least possible, for N.C., and no data at the moment can be used to rule that out.
(My own county - 200K people - has 250 deaths - so that means 0.1% is waaaaay too low. )
The higher death rate in NY has to do with the poor job they did in "flattening the curve". They were just about the only place in the country where hospitals were completely overwhelmed by cases. Also a result of the absolutely awful job they did flattening the curve was that they had their surge in cases far before more effective strategies were developed to fight the virus.
Other places handled the virus much better, so they didn't have anywhere near as many needless deaths from what is a relatively harmless virus. The same happened in northern Italy. If you do a poor enough job, you can make COVID-19 a real nightmare....for example if you enact policies like Governor Cuomo did that ensured the spread of the virus among the most at risk groups.
At 0.1% death rate, Rhode island would need to have 1 mil infections (so basically all its population), LA - 3.3 million, etc. Do I need to continue?
The virus is far from harmless, and as I said multiple times before death or full recovery are not the only possible outcomes.
"Other places"? Yes, South Korea, Germany had mass testing figured out and prepared in January. In Taiwan, they started wearing masks in early January and so on. We had a "travel ban" in the end of that month.
In terms of the current situation: TX, Fl, AZ, etc had the benefit of time, huge amount of time, in fact, compared to NYC or Lombardy. So there is no way to justify the current mess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
