The new cases aren't evenly distributed. California just saw over 11,800 new cases yesterday but New York saw a few over 500 new cases - despite having a record of 11,400 in one day at its peak two months ago. Some regions have it under control and can begin to reopen slowly.
However, I think it's pretty clear that those regions have it under control only because they've shut almost everything down. The second schools begin reopening and pupils start criss crossing the country, it'll bring the "second wave."
NYC had a 20% antibody rate back in April; the disease being under control in NYC may be due to having built up some level of immunity and (sadly) having the vulnerable population die off.
I don't know how this misinformation started spreading but I'm pretty sure 20% is nowhere near enough for herd immunity and I have not seen anything authoritative to the contrary. Barring something compelling to the contrary I see no reason to believe that the disease couldn't spike in NYC again.
There is no compelling evidence proving that the disease cannot spike in NYC.
There are small hints that it MIGHT not be possible. The antibody tests measured the infection rate around April 15 or so, the number should be higher now. Second, there is some evidence that a percentage of people don't develop antibodies (only T cells) but are immune. Finally, we don't really know what is required for herd immunity.
None of this is to say you are wrong, just why it MIGHT be possible that NYC cannot have a second spike.
The point is that if the disease spreads so quickly, and our best evidence from months ago is that 20% of the city was infected, it stands to reason that much more of the city was infected than 20%.
How much more is up for debate. A competent government would be regularly conducting these surveys and publishing the results.
We have been more open, with many protests, streets full of open air bars, etc. for months.
I would bet $100 that NYC, if we could do a full antibody and t-cell assay, would show the majority of the population was infected.
Furthermore, I would submit that R0 as a crude instrument ignores network effects. I'd wager anyone who is a "super spreader" in NYC has been infected at this point.
Some papers have suggested a 20% herd immunity threshold taking into account the network effects. I doubt it's that low, but it is an important factor to consider.
NYC had a 20% antibody rate in a sample of people who were out shopping and consented to giving their blood for the study. That is enough potential sources of bias that assuming the general population had a 20% antibody rate strains credibility.
People out and about shopping or working are also more likely to be the ones spreading the virus. So even though the 20% rate may be an overestimate, if the people more likely to be 'superspreaders' are now immune, that may reduce transmission.
I remember seeing something recently that said the 20% number was an overestimate, as they were surveying people who were out and about at the grocery store, etc. I believe the correct number is 13%.
Sadly, I don't have a link. Hopefully my memory is accurate.
Well, from what I read here in Orange County CA, the state forced the county to count people who have tested positive with Antibody tests to now be counted as a positive COVID-19 test, even if the tests were done long ago.
You should check your sources [1]. Every single time someone has claimed that a federal or state government has "forced" someone to inflate COVID numbers, it's been blatant nonsense.
Not calling GP out specifically, but generally asking someone hell-bent on re-opening to check their sources or facts is pointless. They will just go out and find another rationalization. This isn't just about this school--it's happening all across (at least) the USA. We should be coming up with objective, measurable milestones that support re-opening, tracking towards them, reviewing periodically and then making a decision to re-open based on whether the criteria were met.
Instead, people are simply starting with a foregone conclusion of "We must re-open!" and fishing for any nugget that might justify this pre-ordained decision. So far in this thread we've already seen:
1. The cases are not uniformly distributed, therefore it's OK to re-open in areas that currently seem good! [many variants of this one]
2. Cases are spiking but deaths are not up, we should ignore the non-fatal consequences of the disease and re-open!
3. Cases only look like they are up because testing is up, therefore the numbers are in question, so re-open!
4. Governments are conspiring to inflate case numbers, therefore the numbers are in question, so re-open!
We are already starting to see the disastrous effects of prematurely re-opening, but the public just won't accept any story that doesn't end with "...and we re-opened everything as soon as we could!"
Part of calling this stuff out is to not let bad arguments (or outright disinformation) go unchallenged to people who are just reading along and haven't formed an opinion yet.
However, I think it's pretty clear that those regions have it under control only because they've shut almost everything down. The second schools begin reopening and pupils start criss crossing the country, it'll bring the "second wave."