On 09/04/2020 13:24, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Will there also be a tendency for there to be fewer cases overall
because some family groups will get it but then not be able to pass
it on to anyone else so the virus will die out for that group? If all
households are isolated from each other, there will be a point at
which none of them are still able to pass the virus on to anyone
else, even if some of the members of the household suffer and then
either recover or die.

I think it is more likely that there will be the same number of
*infections* - essentially until we reach 40% who have survived it or
have been vaccinated whatever - , but that the *severity* of the
infection as well as the rate over time will be reduced with lockdown.

That is, it will be a slower *and* *less severe* peak towards herd
immunity.

If people are quarantined for long enough, will there be anyone left who
can still infect anyone else? Even without artificially-induced
antibodies via a vaccination. Maybe to achieve this would require too
long a lockdown.

I think you dont get proper herd immunity until the infection rate drops
to zero which means that the chances of someone with it meeting someone
who has never been exposed are essentially nil.
THAT takes a hell of a lot of people getting it.

The problem is that many have it and hardly feel it. I had a slight
cough, aching muscles and felt a teeny bit feverish several weeks ago,
but that is pretty normal with COPD anyway. Did I have it? Who knows?


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels