My reading let me down to the extent that I didn't think anybody could be so deranged as to make the claims you are making, unfortunately it seems I was wrong.
As to the rest, well you're cherry picking fragments of information and assembling it into a picture that flies in the face of scientific and medical opinion so I think we'll leave it there.
There's nothing remotely deranged about it..In fact some detailed studies and SEIR modelling has been carried out, based on an inhomogeneous population, which have suggested that as little as 6.9% of the population being infected with Covid 19 could bring about Herd Immunity.
You have suggested a basic reproductive number of 5.8, yet widely different variations of that number have been calculated through different populations. This has ranged on figures I have seen from 2.2 up to 7.2, with a mean of 3.28 and median 2.79.
I've watched the numbers very closely, seen the actions taken by various countries, with huge variations in impact from country to country, city to city, which cannot be explained by lockdown alone. I've listened to a whole range of expert opinion and there is undoubtedly good reason to believe that something else is contributing the the demise of the virus once it reaches a certain level of infection in any given population.
We already know for a fact that infection itself has an extremely wide and varied effect on each individual, which ranges from no symptoms, to severe symptoms and death. To that extent, it would appear to make sense that there are widely ranging differences in individual immune response / resistance to the disease.
We also know that the disease is very likely spread by a small number of mainly symptomatic 'super-spreaders' and that asymptomatic cases potentially make up a very signifcant number of those affected.
SEIR modelling has suggested that much higher levels of antibodies were anticipated within certain populations based upon the studied progress of the virus.
So a number of reaasonable possibilities exist regarding the immunity of the population...
1. It's possible that more people have gained antibody immunity and the existing tests have not been sensitive enough.
2. It's possible that people have some inate or crossover immunity and perhaps do not develop antibodes.
3. It's possible that only a limited proportion of those infected are infectious or at least infectious enough to contribute to signifcant widespread infection and proliferation of the disease.
Of course there may be a whole range of other factors, such as age profile, population density, climate, vitamin D levels, pollution levels and action to prevent transmission which will impact on the virus cycle in any population.
www.theguardian.com
