The bias in favor of orthodoxy is still present, however.
The reporter states that "most experts" reject the notion that variation in susceptibility (from, say, prior exposure to other coronarviruses) explains why New York is not seeing a resurgence. /3
But "most experts" seems to be a handful of the original alarmists who opine. For example, Carl Bergstrom claims that herd immunity thresholds based on mathematical models are just "guesses." But if a 10-20% HIT is a guess, so is 60%. Why favor one over the other? /4
It actually stand to reason that a 60% HIT should be rejected as unrealistic. It is a biological fact that not all individuals are equally susceptible to anything. Any variability in susceptibility will demonstrably lower the HIT below what it would otherwise be. /5
You can follow @michelaccad.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.