Tis very difficult to manoeuvre from under the bed so my knowledge on immunity levels is limited unfortunately.
3 Likes
Whether there should or shouldn’t be lockdowns (and I think we fundamentally disagree there) it would appear that immunity is building in some populations. Otherwise we would have to conclude that New Yorkers have FAR superior hygiene than the Melbourne residents. My experience of both cities would not suggest that.
A valid theory.
Also, places that got hammered initially would be a lot more cautious and rigorous with distancing.
Places that didnt have a load of people thinking it’s a cod and not being as rigorous.
I wouldn’t assume it’s immunity. Hygiene and social distancing has become ingrained and that lowers transmission.
Logically you’d have to assume immunity is a valid factor here. The people who got it first day would have been active in areas most likely for a virus to spread, healthcare etc. Any area like that with high susceptibility to initial infection will have higher numbers of immune people. It’s pretty much irrefutable
Most recent study done on people developing antibodies that I noticed was Spain, and found 5% had developed immunity. In my view it’s far more likely that people being conscious not to spread is having the effect, but of course I’m not an expert so could be completely wrong.
Both are key factors. Immunity is definitely a factor. If you broke that 5% down into susceptible groups, what are the percentages like then. For example how many health care workers were sampled and how many developed immunity, I suspect youd see larger numbers.
Of course places that had strict lockdowns imposed would lead to the population being more aware of the protocols and that also is a factor.
Tough on the living the dream brigade in Australia.
The Aussie political arms seem to be fairly snowflakey these days across the board. You’d nearly be arrested for attempting a 5k tfk grudge race without a helmet out there.
If I read it correctly, there’s also a theory that many don’t need antibodies to fight it off, so catch it, but remain antibody negative, but it’s still speculation.
On the US specifically, cases are spiking but deaths are not. Deaths peaked in mid April at ~2.3k per day at a time when daily cases were much lower than today. Deaths have dropped steadily since then, just like everywhere else. Yesterday for example there were 50.5k new cases reported and 378 deaths.
As deaths are not spiking, reasonable conclusions are that the virus is spreading through a less sensitive population (younger people) and/or the virus has mutated into a less deadly version.
2 Likes
That’s for the population as a whole, in denser areas like Madrid it’s in the teens.
Outside of a few places, most of the antibody tests seem to show the hard hit dense areas with into the terms and upwards of 20% with antibodies.
There’s a theory that it burns out after 20% in most places, with some kind of dark matter/T immunity impacting. This is an article co-written by a Swede (who was very critical of their own strategy, so take that as you will)
Immunological Dark Matter = we haven’t a fucking clue what’s happening.
2 Likes
Is there anything go be said for another speculative scientific theory?
proper leadership
1 Like
exceptional leadership
1 Like
Will the US become the first country with a reasonable population to have 1% of their population confirmed to have tested positive for Covid? They look on course to reach it by the weekend.
It would be great if science could tell us with some degree of clarity what they expect the asymptomatic cases to be? 2x, 5x, 10x, 20x? Well science and without might, maybe, could?
Actually forget it.
1 Like
I think we can safely say that at least 5x and maybe 10x more people have been infected than has been reported. The range from antibody testing is 4-20% depending on location. It could of course be much higher if some people are immune but don’t develop specific antibodies.
It’s really hard to calculate asymptomatic cases unless you test everyone regularly.