See, I see it does clearly affect spread. It does seem to affect spread in the areas that have already hit that point. Texas is big. You can't use the state as a whole to test this theory. Areas with 5% or so prevalence like El Paso seem to be taking the blunt of our current numbers. Areas that seemed to have 15, 20, or even more % hit don't see to be spiking as much. And again, this is with less mitigation that at any times. More and more people are just saying eff it and still seeing friends/family. It's human nature the longer you get into this. Yet even with my observations here in my area of less social distancing, the "spike" is no where near what it was in July/august. The best theory is more are immune to it.

Other than NYC, why do you think some areas have hit 15, 20 or more percent? Is there studies showing it or it that backing into the data


Even if there is some effect to what you're saying, Thanksgiving is probably about to burry it in the data imo. Should know by Christmas if not before I would think

It would be interesting to hear from some of the strong proponents of this theory to see if they think it still looks promising or not or somewhere in between

If not, no shame in that, most scientific studies hit a wall but they're still useful. Its kinda like sales, lots of No's before finding a yes

I think NYC is really the only city in the US we can currently test this with. And there are some Europe cities as well. I haven't followed the UK too much here but I'd think they'd be a perfect one to watch here.

Remember, we can't use positive tests as the method. So, deaths are really the only way to measure and isn't perfect. Also, here immunity is R0 < 1 so you have to try and establish total positives based on an IFR which has changed over time.

jamey said:

---

Other than NYC, why do you think some areas have hit 15, 20 or more percent? Is there studies showing it or it that backing into the data


Even if there is some effect to what you're saying, Thanksgiving is probably about to burry it in the data imo. Should know by Christmas if not before I would think

---

It's hard to say, but likely places like Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and all the other big cities in states that had a first wave are likely at the 10-20% threshold. But it's a major public policy failing that we don't know. The government should be doing random anti-body testing to get a sense of how many people had it in these areas.

The 20% idea is that if 20% get it, you get to herd immunity, because 50-70% have at least partial T-cell immunity. Some others said you get to herd immunity at 10-20% because of T-cell immunity plus social distancing. It's basically criminal at this point that we aren't systematically studying it, since we're going to keep having waves of covid in places that haven't been hit yet.

It's really non-sensical to look at it on a state by state basis. You really have to look at metro areas as separate covid entities. So if you see deaths ramping up to April levels in NYC, or July levels in Houston, Dallas etc., you will know for sure that herd immunity wasn't achieved in these areas. We haven't seen that yet.

I wonder if other first world countries have that data, random antibody testing somewhere like London to get a feel for where they were back in July


Of course, last I looked the antibody tests were not that good either


If this natural immunity thru Tcells or otherwise is a thing it should be global

I don't know about you but the NYC serology results are what got me off the ledge

Here are three articles related to cross-reactivity that I have been meaning to read but not found the time.
This is not light reading. I don't know the relative merits of the authors.

Cross-reactive memory T cells and herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00460-4

Is Cross-Reactive Immunity Triggering COVID-19 Immunopathogenesis?https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.567710/full

Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6512/89

I don't know about the other 2 but nature magazine is pretty well respected i believe

NASAg03 said:

---

amercer said:

---

That they should mostly be open. And that bars, restaurants and gyms should be closed.

We'll get a vaccine before we get coordinated policy though.

---

Yes let's close gyms and yoga studios in winter, something definitively known to boost the immune system, to fight a virus, something known to attack the immune system.

And let's close all social outlets like bars and restaurants, increasing stress and loneliness, both of which suppress the immune system, to fight against a virus.

And while we're at it, let's tell people to stay inside out of the sun, resulting in reduced vitamin D levels, to fight a virus.

Wear a mask, making everyone paranoid and angry and frustrating natural socialization, even though there's no definitive proof masks do anything at a public level.

The world response has been completely the opposite of what we should be doing.

* Exercise
* Go outside in the sun
* Socialize
* Eat healthy
* Take fish oil
* Reduce sugar consumption

---

I agree 100%. Closing gyms will kill more than leaving them open. I'll add this as a strength coach; Lift weights and actually train (don't exercise, train with a real program like a beast if you want to be strong enough to beat something like Covid. Name an athlete that has has serious effects and died of Covid.....I'm waiting...). Become an athlete. Train like you're getting ready for the NFL combine or Olympics. Train with fire in you gut. Train with passion. Be strong and Covid will not kill you.

Closing gyms is weak, weak (pun intended) sauce/gets off soapbox.