Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Igel

(37,448 posts)

2. To sharply reduce spread, there needs to be a sufficient number infected.

Reply to relayerbob (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 27, 2020, 05:17 PM

Apr 2020

That's the "herd immunity" bit.

I keep seeing 70% needs to be immune for this virus. Based on the R0 of 3 that gets bandied about.

That number's based on the number of cases and the number of people who test positive. It's been around since early February. Since before we actually knew about asymptomatic transmission, or that so many would be asymptomatic. How that changes the picture, don't know.

Others have said we need 40-80% immune.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

1 in 4 in NYC May Have Been Infected, New Study Finds; Some Parts of State to 'UNPause' May 15 [View all] appalachiablue Apr 2020 OP

OK, so 75% haven't been relayerbob Apr 2020 #1

To sharply reduce spread, there needs to be a sufficient number infected. Igel Apr 2020 #2