This seems pretty mainstream to me :badger wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:16 pmInteresting, also in the light of this pre-print of herd immunity in Brazil https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20194787v1AMS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:56 amCan't find where I saw it now, but saw recently a good explanation of how pre-existing herd immunity (e.g. vaccinated population) works a bit differently to how herd immunity develops naturally, where the fraction that are immune is not constant over time. The upshot is more people become infected by the disease being spread - e.g. you might stop the virus spreading if (say) 60% are pre-immune, but in a naive population, 75% might catch it before the HI stops it. Importantly, the higher the R number, the bigger this overshoot will be, so slowing the spread of the virus also decreases the endpoint in the total number who'll actually catch it.
Just tweeted by @AdamJKucharski
Some people claiming that this supports theory of HIT of 40%, but not sure how...
"... In June, one month following the epidemic peak, 44% of the population was seropositive for SARS-CoV-2, equating to a cumulative incidence of 52%, after correcting for the false-negative rate of the antibody test. The seroprevalence fell in July and August due to antibody waning. After correcting for this, we estimate a final epidemic size of 66%...
i thought people estimated 70%