Re:SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in healthy blood donors during ...
by dustinmoris on Thursday May 21, 2020 @07:05AM
(#23256965)
If this is true, wouldn't that mean that the R is in fact not as high as we believe it is, because it was spreading for longer on a slower rate as opposed to spreading fast in a shorter time period? If we think that it is still highly infecious then the only other conclusion can be that we have a much larger population already immunonised?
Re:SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in healthy blood donors during ...
by s1artibartfast on Thursday May 21, 2020 @09:35AM
(#23258112)
Not necessarily. r0 can be much more reliably measured than severity. hospitalization and death rates give pretty clear picture of doubling time, but could represent wildly different percents of the overall infections
> Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infection was already circulating in Milan at the outbreak start.
It just means that the virus entered the region a few weeks or months earlier than thought so far (the study started on Feb-24), not that there have been COVID-19 waves in previous years.
This seems similar to the recent news that the first case in France was backtracked to December 2019, e.g. the virus was already spreading before the first cases were discovered:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52526554