Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
If I was Yanklandia, I would be expecting to come out way better than India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Brazil.
Hey guys these third world/second world countries might still do worse than us.
Right, but my father made the same comment about Britain about a month or more ago. i.e. Why are we always comparing our graph of how we are doing compared to Italy and Spain, when those are countries where the people see their government as a joke. We should be comparing ourselves to e.g. Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickMPK
I’m replying to a specific question someone posted about evidence for herd immunity.
Why do you think all of the places with the highest infection rates have shown the steepest decline in cases and deaths?
And I don’t believe I ever mention this in the graphs that I’ve been making and posting to the thread.
Even in places like New York or London, antibody testing suggests that the immunity rate is something like 10-20%
That means that the original R0 of perhaps 3, translates to an R of something more like 2.5 instead - i.e. still growing exponentially.
Or a place doing masks, social distancing goes from an R0 of 0.7 to an R0 of 0.6 - i.e. decreasing anyway.
Seriously herd immunity is not the story in those places.
The actual reason the places with the biggest levels of infection have seen the sharpest drops is that the scariest infection rates lead to the largest degree of social distancing - both mandated and voluntary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Counterpoints: Italy, China, Iran, NYC all happened.
This.
It's amazing how often I've read things like "It's hard to transmit it outside your family, it's ok if you're with someone less than 15 minutes." The answer to these is to say something like "Well in that case we don't need to worry as it'll just die out in the first few families it infects in Wuhan and never get over here."