Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief
You can also fit the data by increasing the assumed R0 and assuming a much higher infected rate and a much lower severity for the virus, that is what one of the UK models did. I have no clue which is correct but let's be honest and recognize that there are VASTLY disparate models that can fit the data we currently have. As we get more data that will obviously change. Serology tests would be a HUGE benefit right now in regards to having much more accurate data. (Yes, I'm going to keep beating that dead horse)
|
If the most recent number is to be believed, an R0 of 5.7 would require 82% (IIRC) of the population to be infected to reach herd immunity. That would lead to a tremendously high peak if the virus is even close to as virulent as currently believed. Given what we've seen from isolated examples of a moderate sample size (cruise ships), such a contrastingly low severity of the virus is less likely.
I don't believe that anyone has come out against serology testing in any fashion. The issue, of course, is one of scale.
__________________
"When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
|