ya gotta take it with a grain of salt because of the new reporting criteria (and the lack of info about how/when states are switching over). look two posts up
I never want to live like Taiwan or South Korea. There are better ways to accomplish the same end.
By the way, did you hear about the recent studies in California and the testing at the Boston homeless shelter? We may very well have had 60 million cases here and not know it.
Read the Stanford study and an interview with the author this morning. But the author was very specific in his interview about what this meant and that you can't use this yet for any sort of planning until more research is done.
Even with the adjusted rate of infection as found by the study, only 3% of the population has coronavirus – that means 97% does not. This largely is in line with recent testing in Austria and Germany which suggested 1-3% have been infected. One other really important note that the author of the study brings up - we don't know yet whether having antibodies confers immunity and if so for how long.
From a news article on the study
The study confirms the widely-held belief that far more people than originally thought have been infected with the coronavirus, said Arthur Reingold, an epidemiology professor at UC Berkeley who was not involved in the study, but it doesn’t mean the shelter-in-place order will be lifted any time soon.
“The idea this would be a passport to going safely back to work and getting us up and running has two constraints: we do not know if antibodies protect you and for how long, and a very small percentage of the population even has antibodies,” he said.
Some responses from the author of the study in an interview
What does this mean for immunity in California?
We’re not “immune” in California, because we’re already starting to get antibody tests, and we don’t have a high rate of antibody prevalence in just the few tests that have been run. In the coming weeks, we plan to use our own Stanford tests to look at antibody levels, and we’re just not going to see very high levels. As devastating as this epidemic is, around the world we estimate that about 5% or less of people have actually been infected.
So how do we move forward?
With a disease like this, you probably need somewhere on the order of 60% or more people to have immunity in order to prevent an epidemic. Right now, if we’re at less than 5%; you would need at least ten- to twelve-fold that level. The only way to get there is to vaccinate people or else have horrific transmissions, and we can’t do the latter. So we’re going to have to continue some social distancing efforts.
Is there a way to transition to a system that is less restrictive than our current sheltering, but allows us to avoid those horrific transmissions?
Absolutely. There’s a lot that can be done. We won’t be back to where we were before this right away. But we will be able to start staggering work hours, either by days, people working from home certain days a week, staggering shifts, other mitigation efforts, making sure people are socially distant. And then we need really rigorous testing and contact tracing.
Cases do start tapering off eventually, but what we need to be careful of is when a second wave comes along, which it will, keep it more like a ripple rather than a wave. And extinguish those small outbreaks quickly by identifying infected individuals and making sure their contacts isolate and don’t transmit to others. That’s what we need to get everyone back to work. And over time, we can start staging out less and less restrictive containment practices.