Looks like I was right on immunity.

[Paradoxical]

It is disturbing how large segments of a society will parrot what others say and if that person is "in authority", will use that information as the bible. Many here were parroting some epidemiologist or other as saying that 70-80% of the populace needed to have COVID before immunity would be reached. In a new article, this is being called into question. I absolutely loathe the NY Times, bit since it is the GOTO source for many left wingers here, what better rag to quote for all of the progressives, liberals and independents here. I searched for this only because a poster here derided Dennis Prager for saying that herd immunity may occur at 50% and instead of checking himself, Luce dismissed the contention out of hand because, after all, Dennis Prager, you know is, well.a CONSERVATIVE!! This is what is done with people who want to hold onto false information provided by their tribe. they deride anyone with contrary information as kooks or right wingers or conspiracy nuts.

I don't want to make this OP too long by quoting the entire article which really should be quoted in its entirety as it just shows how much everyone does NOT know about this virus. Also, it kinda proves what I posted about New York being now immune. It seems I possess this uncanny ability to predict the truth a day or so before it comes out as a news article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/world/europe/coronavirus-R0-explainer.html

Now some researchers are wrestling with a hopeful possibility. In interviews with The New York Times, more than a dozen scientists said that the threshold is likely to be much lower: just 50 percent, perhaps even less. If that’s true, then it may be possible to turn back the coronavirus more quickly than once thought.
The new estimates result from complicated statistical modeling of the pandemic, and the models have all taken divergent approaches, yielding inconsistent estimates. It is not certain that any community in the world has enough residents now immune to the virus to resist a second wave.
But in parts of New York, London and Mumbai, for example, it is not inconceivable that there is already substantial immunity to the coronavirus, scientists said.

I was right not because I am smart or smarter than anyone else here but because I use common sense, which seems to be absent in today's hysterical environment. All I did was look at the astronomical death rates per million in the four states that had the highest which are New York, Mass, Conn, and New Jersey, and see that they are now among the LOWEST in people dying, whereas some of the states that were previously very low in death rates are now zooming up. I looked at that and thought "This can't be right. IF immunity needed a populace to have 70-80-90% or more people with COVID for immunity, those four states should STILL have people dying. In spite of the continual lies that somehow those states wore masks and others didn't, there is no proof of that and Sweden alone proves that masks don't make a difference since their death rate per million is only slightly higher than the U.S., and less than other countries who most definitely wore masks since Day One.

What has happened in those four states is that they have reached or are near reaching immunity. That is the only explanation when you look at the chart and the facts and think logically. It also means the article is true. We only need 50% or even less of the populace to have had it. Since the other states have not had enough people infected and killed yet, they are having it now.

Questions, Derisive comments? Complaints?

 

[OlNate]

It is disturbing how large segments of a society will parrot what others say and if that person is "in authority", will use that information as the bible. Many here were parroting some epidemiologist or other as saying that 70-80% of the populace needed to have COVID before immunity would be reached. In a new article, this is being called into question. I absolutely loathe the NY Times, bit since it is the GOTO source for many left wingers here, what better rag to quote for all of the progressives, liberals and independents here. I searched for this only because a poster here derided Dennis Prager for saying that herd immunity may occur at 50% and instead of checking himself, Luce dismissed the contention out of hand because, after all, Dennis Prager, you know is, well.a CONSERVATIVE!! This is what is done with people who want to hold onto false information provided by their tribe. they deride anyone with contrary information as kooks or right wingers or conspiracy nuts.

I don't want to make this OP too long by quoting the entire article which really should be quoted in its entirety as it just shows how much everyone does NOT know about this virus. Also, it kinda proves what I posted about New York being now immune. It seems I possess this uncanny ability to predict the truth a day or so before it comes out as a news article.

Coronavirus R0 Value Explained - The New York Times



I was right not because I am smart or smarter than anyone else here but because I use common sense, which seems to be absent in today's hysterical environment. All I did was look at the astronomical death rates per million in the four states that had the highest which are New York, Mass, Conn, and New Jersey, and see that they are now among the LOWEST in people dying, whereas some of the states that were previously very low in death rates are now zooming up. I looked at that and thought "This can't be right. IF immunity needed a populace to have 70-80-90% or more people with COVID for immunity, those four states should STILL have people dying. In spite of the continual lies that somehow those states wore masks and others didn't, there is no proof of that and Sweden alone proves that masks don't make a difference since their death rate per million is only slightly higher than the U.S., and less than other countries who most definitely wore masks since Day One.

What has happened in those four states is that they have reached or are near reaching immunity. That is the only explanation when you look at the chart and the facts and think logically. It also means the article is true. We only need 50% or even less of the populace to have had it. Since the other states have not had enough people infected and killed yet, they are having it now.

Questions, Derisive comments? Complaints?

Not really any comment at this point - you haven't linked to anything that says anything. :shrug: "it is not inconceivable that there is already substantial immunity" is not a statement of fact, or even belief. It's just not "inconceivable". Ok, cool.

It's good news if it's true, I guess. A way more expensive outcome (in terms of human life) than if the virus was handled properly in the first place, but yes, at some point, this will end, in any number of possible ways, depending on our response. The most costly is to do nothing and let the virus run it's course...but it is one way this can end. I'm not sure it's the one worth bragging over, though...

 

[What if...?]

It is disturbing how large segments of a society will parrot what others say and if that person is "in authority", will use that information as the bible. Many here were parroting some epidemiologist or other as saying that 70-80% of the populace needed to have COVID before immunity would be reached. In a new article, this is being called into question. I absolutely loathe the NY Times, bit since it is the GOTO source for many left wingers here, what better rag to quote for all of the progressives, liberals and independents here. I searched for this only because a poster here derided Dennis Prager for saying that herd immunity may occur at 50% and instead of checking himself, Luce dismissed the contention out of hand because, after all, Dennis Prager, you know is, well.a CONSERVATIVE!! This is what is done with people who want to hold onto false information provided by their tribe. they deride anyone with contrary information as kooks or right wingers or conspiracy nuts.

I don't want to make this OP too long by quoting the entire article which really should be quoted in its entirety as it just shows how much everyone does NOT know about this virus. Also, it kinda proves what I posted about New York being now immune. It seems I possess this uncanny ability to predict the truth a day or so before it comes out as a news article.

Coronavirus R0 Value Explained - The New York Times



I was right not because I am smart or smarter than anyone else here but because I use common sense, which seems to be absent in today's hysterical environment. All I did was look at the astronomical death rates per million in the four states that had the highest which are New York, Mass, Conn, and New Jersey, and see that they are now among the LOWEST in people dying, whereas some of the states that were previously very low in death rates are now zooming up. I looked at that and thought "This can't be right. IF immunity needed a populace to have 70-80-90% or more people with COVID for immunity, those four states should STILL have people dying. In spite of the continual lies that somehow those states wore masks and others didn't, there is no proof of that and Sweden alone proves that masks don't make a difference since their death rate per million is only slightly higher than the U.S., and less than other countries who most definitely wore masks since Day One.

What has happened in those four states is that they have reached or are near reaching immunity. That is the only explanation when you look at the chart and the facts and think logically. It also means the article is true. We only need 50% or even less of the populace to have had it. Since the other states have not had enough people infected and killed yet, they are having it now.

Questions, Derisive comments? Complaints?

Problem with this narrative is that herd immunity must be everywhere at the same time.

There won't be enough infected at any given time for the virus to spread.

But in America with no master plan and way too many idiots, jackasses from places without that immunity will bring it to the "safe" place and make it unsafe again by doing so.

And I don't think we know how durable any immunity will be. So it's probably too early for a victory lap.

 

[noonereal]

It is disturbing how large segments of a society will parrot what others say and if that person is "in authority", will use that information as the bible. Many here were parroting some epidemiologist or other as saying that 70-80% of the populace needed to have COVID before immunity would be reached. In a new article, this is being called into question. I absolutely loathe the NY Times, bit since it is the GOTO source for many left wingers here, what better rag to quote for all of the progressives, liberals and independents here. I searched for this only because a poster here derided Dennis Prager for saying that herd immunity may occur at 50% and instead of checking himself, Luce dismissed the contention out of hand because, after all, Dennis Prager, you know is, well.a CONSERVATIVE!! This is what is done with people who want to hold onto false information provided by their tribe. they deride anyone with contrary information as kooks or right wingers or conspiracy nuts.

I don't want to make this OP too long by quoting the entire article which really should be quoted in its entirety as it just shows how much everyone does NOT know about this virus. Also, it kinda proves what I posted about New York being now immune. It seems I possess this uncanny ability to predict the truth a day or so before it comes out as a news article.

Coronavirus R0 Value Explained - The New York Times



I was right not because I am smart or smarter than anyone else here but because I use common sense, which seems to be absent in today's hysterical environment. All I did was look at the astronomical death rates per million in the four states that had the highest which are New York, Mass, Conn, and New Jersey, and see that they are now among the LOWEST in people dying, whereas some of the states that were previously very low in death rates are now zooming up. I looked at that and thought "This can't be right. IF immunity needed a populace to have 70-80-90% or more people with COVID for immunity, those four states should STILL have people dying. In spite of the continual lies that somehow those states wore masks and others didn't, there is no proof of that and Sweden alone proves that masks don't make a difference since their death rate per million is only slightly higher than the U.S., and less than other countries who most definitely wore masks since Day One.

What has happened in those four states is that they have reached or are near reaching immunity. That is the only explanation when you look at the chart and the facts and think logically. It also means the article is true. We only need 50% or even less of the populace to have had it. Since the other states have not had enough people infected and killed yet, they are having it now.

Questions, Derisive comments? Complaints?

you do make me laugh...

 

[tacomancer]

It is disturbing how large segments of a society will parrot what others say and if that person is "in authority", will use that information as the bible. Many here were parroting some epidemiologist or other as saying that 70-80% of the populace needed to have COVID before immunity would be reached. In a new article, this is being called into question. I absolutely loathe the NY Times, bit since it is the GOTO source for many left wingers here, what better rag to quote for all of the progressives, liberals and independents here. I searched for this only because a poster here derided Dennis Prager for saying that herd immunity may occur at 50% and instead of checking himself, Luce dismissed the contention out of hand because, after all, Dennis Prager, you know is, well.a CONSERVATIVE!! This is what is done with people who want to hold onto false information provided by their tribe. they deride anyone with contrary information as kooks or right wingers or conspiracy nuts.

I don't want to make this OP too long by quoting the entire article which really should be quoted in its entirety as it just shows how much everyone does NOT know about this virus. Also, it kinda proves what I posted about New York being now immune. It seems I possess this uncanny ability to predict the truth a day or so before it comes out as a news article.

Coronavirus R0 Value Explained - The New York Times



I was right not because I am smart or smarter than anyone else here but because I use common sense, which seems to be absent in today's hysterical environment. All I did was look at the astronomical death rates per million in the four states that had the highest which are New York, Mass, Conn, and New Jersey, and see that they are now among the LOWEST in people dying, whereas some of the states that were previously very low in death rates are now zooming up. I looked at that and thought "This can't be right. IF immunity needed a populace to have 70-80-90% or more people with COVID for immunity, those four states should STILL have people dying. In spite of the continual lies that somehow those states wore masks and others didn't, there is no proof of that and Sweden alone proves that masks don't make a difference since their death rate per million is only slightly higher than the U.S., and less than other countries who most definitely wore masks since Day One.

What has happened in those four states is that they have reached or are near reaching immunity. That is the only explanation when you look at the chart and the facts and think logically. It also means the article is true. We only need 50% or even less of the populace to have had it. Since the other states have not had enough people infected and killed yet, they are having it now.

Questions, Derisive comments? Complaints?

Even as early as March, heard immunity estimates were between 30%-60% and revised upward to 40%-70% due to how infectious it is. As far as I know, nobody disputed the science, just whether it is moral to just let people get sick and die in order to get there without using other mitigating strategies to control the spread or "bend the curve"

So if anything, you are still catching up to six month old science.

 

[Phys251]

(trimmed for length)

Yet again, Para reminds us that he does not have the slightest clue what herd immunity even is.

Herd immunity requires 1-1/R_0 of the population to become immune to the disease. Since we are months or years away from a vaccine, that means he wants herd immunity via mass infection. That R_0 value has various estimates depending on the source and the modeled behavior of people, but it is generally thought to be somewhere between 2 to 4. This would mean that he wants 50% to 75% of Americans to get the coronavirus.

Oh wait, it gets worse. A conservative estimate for the fatality rate of COVID-19 even now is 1%.

Do you see where this is going? Para is calling for at least 320,000,000 x 50% x 1% = 1.6 million Americans to die.

So much for Republicans being "pro-life."

 

[swing_voter]

They are hoping herd immunity will take place at 50% infected.


America has 533 deaths per million population.

Sweden has 574


Sweden did the herd immunity thing. Wouldn't Sweden have fewer deaths right now?

 

[Mycroft]

It is disturbing how large segments of a society will parrot what others say and if that person is "in authority", will use that information as the bible. Many here were parroting some epidemiologist or other as saying that 70-80% of the populace needed to have COVID before immunity would be reached. In a new article, this is being called into question. I absolutely loathe the NY Times, bit since it is the GOTO source for many left wingers here, what better rag to quote for all of the progressives, liberals and independents here. I searched for this only because a poster here derided Dennis Prager for saying that herd immunity may occur at 50% and instead of checking himself, Luce dismissed the contention out of hand because, after all, Dennis Prager, you know is, well.a CONSERVATIVE!! This is what is done with people who want to hold onto false information provided by their tribe. they deride anyone with contrary information as kooks or right wingers or conspiracy nuts.

I don't want to make this OP too long by quoting the entire article which really should be quoted in its entirety as it just shows how much everyone does NOT know about this virus. Also, it kinda proves what I posted about New York being now immune. It seems I possess this uncanny ability to predict the truth a day or so before it comes out as a news article.

Coronavirus R0 Value Explained - The New York Times



I was right not because I am smart or smarter than anyone else here but because I use common sense, which seems to be absent in today's hysterical environment. All I did was look at the astronomical death rates per million in the four states that had the highest which are New York, Mass, Conn, and New Jersey, and see that they are now among the LOWEST in people dying, whereas some of the states that were previously very low in death rates are now zooming up. I looked at that and thought "This can't be right. IF immunity needed a populace to have 70-80-90% or more people with COVID for immunity, those four states should STILL have people dying. In spite of the continual lies that somehow those states wore masks and others didn't, there is no proof of that and Sweden alone proves that masks don't make a difference since their death rate per million is only slightly higher than the U.S., and less than other countries who most definitely wore masks since Day One.

What has happened in those four states is that they have reached or are near reaching immunity. That is the only explanation when you look at the chart and the facts and think logically. It also means the article is true. We only need 50% or even less of the populace to have had it. Since the other states have not had enough people infected and killed yet, they are having it now.

Questions, Derisive comments? Complaints?

"it is not inconceivable"

Okay.

 

[Phys251]

They are hoping herd immunity will take place at 50% infected.


America has 533 deaths per million population.

Sweden has 574


Sweden did the herd immunity thing. Wouldn't Sweden have fewer deaths right now?

In Para's fantasy world, they would.

In the real world, they don't.



This chart is several days old, but the difference between Sweden's trajectories and Norway's and Finland's are unmistakable.

 

[Paradoxical]

Not really any comment at this point - you haven't linked to anything that says anything. :shrug: "it is not inconceivable that there is already substantial immunity" is not a statement of fact, or even belief. It's just not "inconceivable". Ok, cool.

It's good news if it's true, I guess. A way more expensive outcome (in terms of human life) than if the virus was handled properly in the first place, but yes, at some point, this will end, in any number of possible ways, depending on our response. The most costly is to do nothing and let the virus run it's course...but it is one way this can end. I'm not sure it's the one worth bragging over, though...

How should the virus have been handled properly?

 

[Paradoxical]

Problem with this narrative is that herd immunity must be everywhere at the same time.

There won't be enough infected at any given time for the virus to spread.

But in America with no master plan and way too many idiots, jackasses from places without that immunity will bring it to the "safe" place and make it unsafe again by doing so.

And I don't think we know how durable any immunity will be. So it's probably too early for a victory lap.

Mask or no mask, this virus is gonna do what its gonna do, and it already did what it was gonna do in those four states. No more people to kill there.

 

[OlNate]

How should the virus have been handled properly?

By taking steps to drastically reduce the number of infections until a vaccine / treatment could be found, so as to minimize the number of dead. Different countries have had different approaches, with different results, so comparison of response is available, if you'd like to review the more successful approaches.

 

[Paradoxical]

you do make me laugh...

Good, as long as you get educated along with the laughs.

 

[Visbek]

It is disturbing how large segments of a society will parrot what others say and if that person is "in authority"....

It is disturbing how many people are so blinded by their own bias, that they refuse to listen to experts who have spent decades studying and working on disease. Go on....

Many here were parroting some epidemiologist or other as saying that 70-80% of the populace needed to have COVID before immunity would be reached.

No, they've been saying 50-60% for months. You just didn't pay attention.

Here's one from April: Error - Cookies Turned Off

Therefore, for R0 = 2‐3, nearly 50% to 66.66%* (threshold) of the population is required to be immune against COVID‐19 for the protection of susceptible individuals in a given population through herd immunity.

I was right not because I am smart or smarter than anyone else here but because I use common sense....

Or, you're just full of ****.

Cherry-picking doesn't make you either correct or smart.

Neither does linking to the wrong article. You linked to a NYT article from April explaining R0.

The correct article is here: Covid-19: What if ‘Herd Immunity’ Is Closer Than Scientists Thought? - The New York Times

Nothing in the article indicates that NY, NJ, MA or CT have all reached herd immunity. One of the scientists says, as you quoted and obviously (if not deliberately) misunderstood, is:


“I’m quite prepared to believe that there are pockets in New York City and London which have substantial immunity,” said Bill Hanage, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “What happens this winter will reflect that.”

“The question of what it means for the population as a whole, however, is much more fraught,” he added.

All I did was look at the astronomical death rates per million in the four states that had the highest which are New York, Mass, Conn, and New Jersey, and see that they are now among the LOWEST in people dying...

All you did was deliberately ignore the beneficial effects of social distancing and other mitigation and suppression efforts.

That's why you cannot explain multiple waves in states and nations like Colorado, Louisiana, Delaware, Illinois, Norway, Italy, the UK, and so on.

What has happened in those four states is that they have reached or are near reaching immunity.

No, it hasn't. And I'm confident that not only would every scientist the NYT interviewed disagree with you, they'd say that your deliberate misinterpretation of their claims is dangerous. One even explicitly says, "I think we’d be playing with fire if we pretended we’re done with this."

It is obvious that you're not interested in actual science, epidemiology, or medical research. All you do is cherry-pick items, in bad faith, to support your predetermined conclusions.

 

[Paradoxical]

Even as early as March, heard immunity estimates were between 30%-60% and revised upward to 40%-70% due to how infectious it is. As far as I know, nobody disputed the science, just whether it is moral to just let people get sick and die in order to get there without using other mitigating strategies to control the spread or "bend the curve"

So if anything, you are still catching up to six month old science.

Show me an article fro 6 months ago that said 30-60%

 

[Paradoxical]

Yet again, Para reminds us that he does not have the slightest clue what herd immunity even is.

Herd immunity requires 1-1/R_0 of the population to become immune to the disease. Since we are months or years away from a vaccine, that means he wants herd immunity via mass infection. That R_0 value has various estimates depending on the source and the modeled behavior of people, but it is generally thought to be somewhere between 2 to 4. This would mean that he wants 50% to 75% of Americans to get the coronavirus.

Oh wait, it gets worse. A conservative estimate for the fatality rate of COVID-19 even now is 1%.

Do you see where this is going? Para is calling for at least 320,000,000 x 50% x 1% = 1.6 million Americans to die.

So much for Republicans being "pro-life."

Isn't that what your socalled experts were saying were going to die WITH social distancing and masks.

Your "experts' have been wrong more than a broken clock.

BTW, the RO value is unknown. You now this, right?

Oh WAIT! You don't.

 

[Paradoxical]

By taking steps to drastically reduce the number of infections until a vaccine / treatment could be found, so as to minimize the number of dead. Different countries have had different approaches, with different results, so comparison of response is available, if you'd like to review the more successful approaches.

OK, and how should that have been done?

PS When will you be inventing the vaccine?

 

[Phys251]

Isn't that what your socalled experts were saying were going to die WITH social distancing and masks.

Your "experts' have been wrong more than a broken clock.

BTW, the RO value is unknown. You now this, right?

Oh WAIT! You don't.

Notice how Para responded. He didn't refute the accusation against him, he **** on the experts for the thousandth time, and he went Dunning-Kruger yet again.

Remember, his disdain for 1.6 human lives is a conservative estimate.

 

[OlNate]

OK, and how should that have been done?

PS When will you be inventing the vaccine?

Ask nearly every country other than America. :shrug:

PS: I don't answer douchey questions. I answered you seriously. Try to be worth my time.

 

[What if...?]

Mask or no mask, this virus is gonna do what its gonna do, and it already did what it was gonna do in those four states. No more people to kill there.

That is not how herd immunity works.

It just isn't.

The premise is that when enough are immune there won't be enough virus around to infect those who haven't had it yet

So 50% or 40% or 30% can still catch it and spread it to others, thereby reigniting the virus.

 

[Jay59]

Even as early as March, heard immunity estimates were between 30%-60% and revised upward to 40%-70% due to how infectious it is. As far as I know, nobody disputed the science, just whether it is moral to just let people get sick and die in order to get there without using other mitigating strategies to control the spread or "bend the curve"

So if anything, you are still catching up to six month old science.

Official exposure estimates go to 20%. If so, there will be clusters with exposure well above that. So places like inner cities may be seeing sharp drops in new cases for this reason.

That we are seeing a new case decline is undeniable. Scientists are saying that we do not have even a decent understanding of either transmission or resistance development. It's good nows for all of us, but we do not understand why.

 

[CaughtInThe]

you do make me laugh...

Me too

He's so far down the rabbit hole he can't escape. He doesn't have the ability.

 

[dairyair]

It is disturbing how large segments of a society will parrot what others say and if that person is "in authority", will use that information as the bible. Many here were parroting some epidemiologist or other as saying that 70-80% of the populace needed to have COVID before immunity would be reached. In a new article, this is being called into question. I absolutely loathe the NY Times, bit since it is the GOTO source for many left wingers here, what better rag to quote for all of the progressives, liberals and independents here. I searched for this only because a poster here derided Dennis Prager for saying that herd immunity may occur at 50% and instead of checking himself, Luce dismissed the contention out of hand because, after all, Dennis Prager, you know is, well.a CONSERVATIVE!! This is what is done with people who want to hold onto false information provided by their tribe. they deride anyone with contrary information as kooks or right wingers or conspiracy nuts.

I don't want to make this OP too long by quoting the entire article which really should be quoted in its entirety as it just shows how much everyone does NOT know about this virus. Also, it kinda proves what I posted about New York being now immune. It seems I possess this uncanny ability to predict the truth a day or so before it comes out as a news article.

Coronavirus R0 Value Explained - The New York Times



I was right not because I am smart or smarter than anyone else here but because I use common sense, which seems to be absent in today's hysterical environment. All I did was look at the astronomical death rates per million in the four states that had the highest which are New York, Mass, Conn, and New Jersey, and see that they are now among the LOWEST in people dying, whereas some of the states that were previously very low in death rates are now zooming up. I looked at that and thought "This can't be right. IF immunity needed a populace to have 70-80-90% or more people with COVID for immunity, those four states should STILL have people dying. In spite of the continual lies that somehow those states wore masks and others didn't, there is no proof of that and Sweden alone proves that masks don't make a difference since their death rate per million is only slightly higher than the U.S., and less than other countries who most definitely wore masks since Day One.

What has happened in those four states is that they have reached or are near reaching immunity. That is the only explanation when you look at the chart and the facts and think logically. It also means the article is true. We only need 50% or even less of the populace to have had it. Since the other states have not had enough people infected and killed yet, they are having it now.

Questions, Derisive comments? Complaints?

What makes you think 50% of NYers had the virus?

 

[Ethel2]

It is disturbing how large segments of a society will parrot what others say and if that person is "in authority", will use that information as the bible. Many here were parroting some epidemiologist or other as saying that 70-80% of the populace needed to have COVID before immunity would be reached. In a new article, this is being called into question. I absolutely loathe the NY Times, bit since it is the GOTO source for many left wingers here, what better rag to quote for all of the progressives, liberals and independents here. I searched for this only because a poster here derided Dennis Prager for saying that herd immunity may occur at 50% and instead of checking himself, Luce dismissed the contention out of hand because, after all, Dennis Prager, you know is, well.a CONSERVATIVE!! This is what is done with people who want to hold onto false information provided by their tribe. they deride anyone with contrary information as kooks or right wingers or conspiracy nuts.

I don't want to make this OP too long by quoting the entire article which really should be quoted in its entirety as it just shows how much everyone does NOT know about this virus. Also, it kinda proves what I posted about New York being now immune. It seems I possess this uncanny ability to predict the truth a day or so before it comes out as a news article.

Coronavirus R0 Value Explained - The New York Times



I was right not because I am smart or smarter than anyone else here but because I use common sense, which seems to be absent in today's hysterical environment. All I did was look at the astronomical death rates per million in the four states that had the highest which are New York, Mass, Conn, and New Jersey, and see that they are now among the LOWEST in people dying, whereas some of the states that were previously very low in death rates are now zooming up. I looked at that and thought "This can't be right. IF immunity needed a populace to have 70-80-90% or more people with COVID for immunity, those four states should STILL have people dying. In spite of the continual lies that somehow those states wore masks and others didn't, there is no proof of that and Sweden alone proves that masks don't make a difference since their death rate per million is only slightly higher than the U.S., and less than other countries who most definitely wore masks since Day One.

What has happened in those four states is that they have reached or are near reaching immunity. That is the only explanation when you look at the chart and the facts and think logically. It also means the article is true. We only need 50% or even less of the populace to have had it. Since the other states have not had enough people infected and killed yet, they are having it now.

Questions, Derisive comments? Complaints?

Ummm....nowhere has reached herd immunity. If the virus is under decent control its because people there are behaving themselves. NYC took it on the chin so they now behave pretty well of course. You get sucker punched you learn a lesson. Herd immunity is not going to be significant until about 70% of the people get infected, and that will cost well over 600,000 lives-at least.

 

[Paradoxical]

Notice how Para responded. He didn't refute the accusation against him, he **** on the experts for the thousandth time, and he went Dunning-Kruger yet again.

Remember, his disdain for 1.6 human lives is a conservative estimate.

Since you're so smart, what is the RO of COVID?


Oh WAIT!...................