how? if 5-10-15% percent of the people have had it and itâs necessary to get to 60-70% they are inconsequential at those levels. Having them walking around with a 95-90-85% population that havenât had it has absolutely no bearing on the spread.
Bergamo/Lombardy, where there are estimated 50% levels of antibodies in the population had 251 cases recently, among the highest in Italy I think.
Yes the hospitals are always overrun at the best of times. But it is now becoming clear that NPHET are weaponising this fact as an instrument to bring about another lockdown and alleviate the burden the healthcare system faces. If they thought locking down the country in other years with no pandemic was an option they would run with it.
Are those 5 simpletons in their own sub-group in the DĂĄil to claim speaking rights? Healy-Rae x2, Mattie Mc, Mick Collins and yer man with the truck in Limerick. 
that is some collegiate of cunts
How do you think it gets to 60-70% levels?
it spreads among the people who havenât developed immunity, which is what @Batigol is bizarrely claiming it doesnât do.
Aside from the hands thing, the knarly teeth thing (cc @Mac), the way he pronounces words where the first vowel is an âiâ amuses me greatly. MicheĂĄl Martin saying the word âriseâ is very funny.
Three groups of Independents in the Dail to claim speaking rights.
The Rural Independents
The Regional Group
The Independent group
The more people with antibodies the more it will struggle to transmit surely. The spread would surely be less if antibody levels were at 15% as opposed to 5%, as his grows and grows and grows it will be interesting.
The biggest issue in Ireland is the health service.
The biggest problem with the virus globally is that science, the smartest kid in the class, is actually as much a dunce as the rest of us.
Iâm not so sure thatâs true given how populations move and interact. Possibly when it reaches close to the percentage required it may be slower to get over the line and reach the required percentage, which, paradoxically isnât great either
Science may be struggling to come up with answers now mate, but the dumber kids are still looking towards it for answers with a vaccine and strategy. Itâs all weâve got
Look the vaccine will probably never come or it will kill the lot of us.
Itâs there, we just have to see how it develops but right not the potency of the virus, looking at the trends, doesnât seem to be as fatal as it was early doors.
Thatâs exactly what I claimed.
Having people with immunity in the population will limit the spread.
Again i did not mention here immunity and encouraging the spread.
it wonât at the levels weâre currently at. At all. Are you suggesting the 5% to 10% of the people who have possible immunity only meet each other when theyâre out and about?
this trend isnât noticeable globally. There are still 5-6k deaths notified per day.
The virus is at different stages, China and Europe were the initials outbreaks and deaths are well down on peak levels.
No. Iâm suggesting that if they meet others with it and then go home, they wonât have caught it to then spread it on. That will slow the spread, however slightly.
Person A has Coronavirus. Meets person B whoâs had it and is immune. Person B then meets person C and doesnât spread it to them.
thatâs how it works alright when herd immunity is close to achieved. Even then people will still get sick from the virus.
at the current levels of assumed antibodies, the spread of the virus will not be mitigated in any way shape or form hence social distancing and guidelines
deriving from your example, with 10% immunity assumed and one person meets 10 people, someone with the virus passes it on to 3 others on average (for example)
Person A has covid19 - meets 10 people. 1 immune. 3 get infected. Person B now has covid19 meets 10 people, 1 immune, now 7 now have the virus. Person C from original meeting meets 10 people, 1 immune 3 get infected.
The spread isnât mitigated by the number of immune until herd immunity is achieved