It is slowly becoming more mainstream that infection induced herd immunity could be far less than vaccine induced herd immunity.I think we just see this differently, and a difference that might not actually have a substantive difference. I think regardless of region, there are populations at risk and those that aren't. I think you know first hand, where you are, that there are folks taking precautions, working remotely and being capable of being safe from infection. That behavior is prevalent enough to effectively curtail the spread of the virus by keeping people safe from exposure. I think this puts a natural ceiling on the virus' ability to spread throughout the population. Whether or not that confers actual herd immunity seems unlikely to me. But perhaps, by exposing that other class of people and allowing them to serve as the guinea pigs and strip enough potential carriers out of population, perhaps that reducing the infections enough to effectively depress the virus' impact.
Yet every place that gets around that immunity level starts to fall, with all those different levels of lockdown or open, different levels of personal responsibility, and etc.
Even if that isn’t true.
Say it is 50-50 on whether you develop antibodies or just T-cell immunity. The USA is around 15% infection right now based on one of the most accurate, if not the most, modelers.
That would put us somewhere up to 30% infection in the USA. That would mean we are halfway there. I just don’t believe there is a way for this virus to explode like it did in the USA again. It hasn’t been mutating like the flu does.
Not even accounting for studies that say up to 40% of people could have some form of protection from other coronavirus infections.
