roubaixtuesday
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 4,467
- Team supported
- City
Could be absolutely miles off with this, and don't want to be seen as peddling utter bullshit, but interesting to see the figures from London and New York which both had an awful first wave. Could the herd immunity threshold be much lower than the 65% or so anticipated or could the seroprevalence rate be much higher than the 10% or so estimated? As I say, only speculating and could be miles off.
Quick Google gave this for London, up to Oct 12th.
Very clearly not herd immunity. Looks like an exponential increase just a few weeks behind the North.
What you would expect is that the seroprevalence would reduce R proportionately. So if London would have an R of 1.5, but has 20% seroprevalence, then it's actual R would be 1.2 (20% lower). So you might expect London's rate of increase to be lower due to the bigger outbreak there earlier. All assuming that immunity is defined by serology and persists.
But all of this is overwhelmed by behaviour - the R for normal population is about 3.5.