At 19:21 14/03/2020, Greg Dropkin wrote:
>I agree this assumes infected and survived implies immune. But if
>60% are actually immune, then if R0 = 2.35 the disease will not
>spread further, is the argument
That I certainly don't dispute - but, as I said, it seems far from
totally safe to assume, with an unfamiliar virus, by any means all
people infected would develop effective and lasting immunity - so
it's not impossible that a lot more than 60% would have to be
infected for 60% to become effectively immune. Unlikely, perhaps,
but not impossible.
Kind Regards,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|