Herd immunity can be much lower due to how this virus spread. Awhile back I posted a Dutch data scientist who showed the modeling based the fact that a small number of people are responsible for a large majority of the infections. It's estimated that 10-20% of people are responsible for 80% of the infections. With this idea in mind this would lower herd immunity dramatically possibly well below 40%. I'll try to find the link to his models if you are curious. NYC will be an interesting test. Spain and Italy seem to have not to be having any major outbreaks over a month after reopening.
Ironically what paul said in the first 30 seconds truly applies to the fumble of the administration. Fauci, at the 6.00 minute mark of the video, catches the irony and throws shade that goes over raulie's head. I like it . good video.
lol @ 'stunning admission'. all that video does is show what an idiot Paul is. His neighbor had the right idea.
Why does Rand Paul continue to act like he's the gatekeeper of the people? He thinks he's our dad? We just want the straight up facts.
I’m in Brooklyn, and yes, it varies from borough to borough but also by neighborhood (I live in an affluent area fwiw). Anecdotally, I know very, very few people who have had the antibody test.... I don’t think we have all the data. I stand by my hopeful optimism.
Yeah... who is even getting those tests and contributing to the data? People likely exposed, like cops? I know someone in Brooklyn, her entire building was likely Covid+ around the same time. She never actually got tested. The doctor told her to stay home and ship her baby off (lol). I'll ask, maybe the baby got the antibody test. That'd make sense.
Interesting site that I haven't seen before. It's unclear what they're defining as an encounter. Eating at a restaurant for an hour is more dangerous than walking past some people on the street even though it's less raw number of encounters. I'll have to look more into their data to make sense of it. I'd be very interested in seeing that article. That would be great news and achieving herd immunity might be possible after all if it's done in a controlled manner where hospitals aren't overwhelmed.
Update. I asked. So, like I said, she never got the test because it was not readily available but the doctor more or less KNEW what was up. She eventually had the antibody test to confirm. So this make sense - if these types of people are the ones getting the antibody test, a high positivity rate is no surprise. You have to remember how difficult it was to actually GET a test early on (thanks Trump).
I like your optimism, but two quick cautionary notes. The antibody tests are very, very noisy. Some studies show them about 50% accurate either way. And other science research is showing immune response to COVID might be led by T cells and so antibodies are not the best marker in that case. Anyway, it's very possible you were both exposed and had non-symptomatic cases, and I agree that there is probably a huge swath of NYC folks who contracted it and never knew. Hopefully all y'all are immune for a while to come.
Encounter as "proximity between any two users of the same province who were seen within a circle of radius R = 50m over a 1 hour period."
Thanks. I was able to find their methodology with the quote you had there. What sticks out to me is that an encounter can also be described as "In other words: two devices within 50 meters of each other for 60 minutes or less." So if someone briefly walks by another person. It would count as an encounter. I wish there was a multiplier of some sort to adjust for amount of time spent in the same place.
This seems like terrible methodology. 50 meters? That's half a football field. So if a bunch of people are in a park and are all 15 feet apart, that's going to be considered a bunch of encounters - and treated the same as if they were in a bar all packed together? That doesn't seem to tell us much at all.
Sample size is by county. While there may be a situation that a park with perfectly spaced people could register the same as a bar, odds are good that these rare situations get averaged out on a county wide scale.
Except the whole point is that different parts of the country are taking social distancing more or less seriously. In a place like Houston, people might be running around to bars. In a place like New York where they've been hit hard and take this more seriously, people may be instead choosing to be outdoors at parks. People are going to do *something*. The question is what they are doing, and this type of data misses that entirely.