Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav...
by CubsFan1060 on Thursday April 23, 2020 @05:25PM
(#22961646)
I don't think this a binary outcome. Getting closer to herd immunity also makes things better. Take NYC. Now 1 out of 5 people you see can't infect you (assuming having antibodies means immunity). The closer we get, the better it is. Having 21% "immune" leads to far different outcomes than .1%.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav...
by slg on Thursday April 23, 2020 @05:40PM
(#22961828)
I'm no expert here, so someone can correct me if I am wrong. But I believe as long as each infected person spreads it to more than 1 other non-infected person the disease will continue to spread until there is a herd immunity level of infections. That spread rate will decrease as more people have antibodies, but it seems unlikely to get below 1 since even all the stay at home orders haven't been able to get that number much below 1.
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav...
by mynegation on Thursday April 23, 2020 @06:12PM
(#22962161)
Sustained spread of the infection stops when percentage of people having immunity is 1-1/R0. So if R0 for Covid-19 is (hypothetically) 3, you need 67% immunity to reach herd immunity. For highly contagious diseases like smallpox that number is very close to 100%
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav...
by slv77 on Thursday April 23, 2020 @09:23PM
(#22963651)
The 1-1/R0 is the point that the virus starts to burn out but there is still a long tail of infections. The total population that is infected will be higher than 1 - 1/R0. Also if the estimates of IFR were too high than the estimates of R0 were too low.
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav...
by mlyle on Thursday April 23, 2020 @07:16PM
(#22962730)
Yes, but there's a world of difference between Rt=1.5 and Rt=2.5, both in the degree of controls necessary to bring Rt close to 1 and in how far it can get out of hand if your controls are somewhat insufficient.
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav...
by badfrog on Thursday April 23, 2020 @05:39PM
(#22961817)
> The closer we get, the better it is. Having 21% "immune" leads to far different outcomes than .1%.
It depends on how long the immunity lasts. If it's permanent, this is indeed great. If it lasts only a few months, this 21% won't make any difference for another wave of infections this fall.
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav...
by __blockcipher__ on Thursday April 23, 2020 @06:36PM
(#22962361)
We use the term "immunity" but we should remember that there is a difference between the presence of active antibodies and the presence of immune "memory cells". The latter hang around long-term, even if the former disappear. So at a minimum if one does develop infection they will recover far sooner and with better outcomes. And likely will reach a far lower peak viral load which might bring down transmission.
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav...
by maxerickson on Thursday April 23, 2020 @07:24PM
(#22962795)
That is not well established.
It's likely enough, but we don't gain long term immunity to every virus that we successfully clear.
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav...
by __blockcipher__ on Thursday April 23, 2020 @09:29PM
(#22963691)
It is well established.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_T_cell
You are conflating active circulating antibodies with the memory T cells. Which is literally what my entire comment was about.
Re:Preliminary test results suggest 21% of NYC residents hav...
by mlyle on Friday April 24, 2020 @12:05PM
(#22969534)
Of course, there's other confounds. Like the somewhat recent discovery that we end up with antigen experience / "memory" of diseases that we've never contracted. (Perhaps from viral fragments in the environment??)