- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
UPDATED: When Will We Reach Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT)
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:08 am
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:08 am
I have revised the spreadsheet I posted on Saturday showing the projected number of days before we gain Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT). Don't think we have too far to go.
I used a weighted average of worldwide studies for the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). Here is that table.
Early in Covid19, "experts" were saying that we needed 70% of the population to achieve herd immunity (HIT). That has been revised downward and many of the latest projections place HIT between 10-20%. I've used 20% in my projections.
Anyway, here are the projections using actual to date counts.
Here is the summary if you do not want to wade through the calculations:
I used a weighted average of worldwide studies for the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). Here is that table.
Early in Covid19, "experts" were saying that we needed 70% of the population to achieve herd immunity (HIT). That has been revised downward and many of the latest projections place HIT between 10-20%. I've used 20% in my projections.
Anyway, here are the projections using actual to date counts.
Here is the summary if you do not want to wade through the calculations:
7
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:11 am to BaldEagleHey
I think that’s too low for the herd immunity estimate. But I agree with the overall point to some extent.
I think the NY numbers should caution us a bit about a relatively low HIT.
I think the NY numbers should caution us a bit about a relatively low HIT.
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:11 am to BaldEagleHey
How do you explain Louisiana cases still climbing?
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:12 am to BaldEagleHey
I think we'll be ok in about a month. I think we are ok now, but I know the politicians won't admit it. I'm hopeful the numbers are so low they won't be able to pretend they don't notice them.
Then again, I haven't seen an adjustment from them since we learned the IFR is below .3%, so who knows.
Then again, I haven't seen an adjustment from them since we learned the IFR is below .3%, so who knows.
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:14 am to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
How do you explain Louisiana cases still climbing?
More people willing to be tested and more resources pointed towards testing.
If you test more, you will get more positives, even if the infection rate stays the same. I thought that was common, easy to understand knowledge.
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:14 am to the808bass
Perhaps, but their death numbers are vastly inflated due to handling of their nursing homes.
10-20% is a pretty decent number given trends in other countries and the data from cruise ships.
10-20% is a pretty decent number given trends in other countries and the data from cruise ships.
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:17 am to BaldEagleHey
Every single piece of data you used is manipulated lies. There isn't a single metric that is accurate.
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:17 am to BaldEagleHey
Any states that have Nov. 4 as the HIT date?
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:19 am to deathvalleytiger10
Cases aren’t meaningless. But they’re meaningless-adjacent.
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:22 am to deathvalleytiger10
While I agree that the HIT is very likely much lower than 70% the problem is many of the outbreaks are in elderly homes who really don’t contribute to the HIT. So take hundreds if not thousands of those cases out of NOLA. Also because of that it inflates the number of cases in LA but those really have no herd immunity benefit in other parts of the state which is why your seeing spikes in LC, Lafayette, Alexandria but not as much in NOLA. I think once the rest of the state has it’s outbreak you’ll likely see the state be done with it for the most part. But we need all of the 7 most populated areas achieve their own HIT before we will see the state slow down. You could also argue that we need Houston, Beaumont and other surrounding areas do the same to benefit us.
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:31 am to tigereye58
quote:
But we need all of the 7 most populated areas achieve their own HIT before we will see the state slow down. You could also argue that we need Houston, Beaumont and other surrounding areas do the same to benefit us.
Agreed. Let me see if I can put in the Nursing Home factor and then project from there.
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:36 am to Tallyman
quote:
Any states that have Nov. 4 as the HIT date?
WA has their COVID-19 public protocols set to expire that day, FWIW.
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:36 am to omegaman66
quote:
Every single piece of data you used is manipulated lies. There isn't a single metric that is accurate.
Every IFR he used is sourced. What are you talking about?
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:43 am to BaldEagleHey
The CDC estimates the IFR at 0.65% and the largest meta analysis (continually adding studies) estimates it at 0.69%.
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:44 am to buckeye_vol
Did they change it recently? It was .26, and that would be a MASSIVE jump
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:44 am to tigereye58
quote:
While I agree that the HIT is very likely much lower than 70% the problem is many of the outbreaks are in elderly homes who really don’t contribute to the HIT. So take hundreds if not thousands of those cases out of NOLA. Also because of that it inflates the number of cases in LA but those really have no herd immunity benefit in other parts of the state which is why your seeing spikes in LC, Lafayette, Alexandria but not as much in NOLA. I think once the rest of the state has it’s outbreak you’ll likely see the state be done with it for the most part. But we need all of the 7 most populated areas achieve their own HIT before we will see the state slow down. You could also argue that we need Houston, Beaumont and other surrounding areas do the same to benefit us.
Yes. General (as opposed to specific by area) lockdowns never really made sense and just prolonged the agony.
And also needlessly caused delay in normal medical procedures which probably cost many lives in places where the disease wasn't yet really spreading.
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:45 am to JesusQuintana
quote:Yes. I posted it in the OT thread, so I’ll use to find it quickly.
Did they change it recently? It was .26, and that would be a MASSIVE jump
ETA: CDC updates COVID estimates and scenarios
This post was edited on 7/21/20 at 9:47 am
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:46 am to the808bass
quote:
I think that’s too low for the herd immunity estimate
Here is the projection with 40% HIT.
Summary at 40% HIT
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:46 am to ShoeBang
quote:
If you test more, you will get more positives, even if the infection rate stays the same. I thought that was common, easy to understand knowledge.
I would have thought people had caught on to the covid hoax by now. What's the point of testing?
Posted on 7/21/20 at 9:50 am to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
How do you explain Louisiana cases still climbing?
I think it's going to turn out that HIT is dependent on population density. Takes a higher percentage of people to get infected if you're living right on top of each other.
Which relates to the poster above you saying:
quote:
I think the NY numbers should caution us a bit about a relatively low HIT.
Edit to add:
So, perhaps Louisiana did initially reach HIT, but then certain events that changed conditions (protests, bars opening, migrant workers/Mexico peaking, virus behaving like a tropical respiratory infection/hot outside so people are indoors) allowed for the wave of infection to increase.
This post was edited on 7/21/20 at 9:53 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News