I’d consider 3 cases per 1,000 people to be a pretty low prevalence within a community.
1 Like
Without looking it up, do you know the definition of “low community transmission”
Nowhere near 0.3% of the population per day testing positive (not even total transmission estimates). That’s pretty high transmission.
<1 per 10000 is low from CDC definition. 30 per 10000 is in the upper end of moderate, nearing substantial.
.3% is one student in a typical elementary school. Cant really get much lower than that.
And “community transmission” are not total cases, it’s cases they cannot attribute to any specific source. If dad getting sick then passes it on to the other 5 members of his family, that is (at most) one case of community transmission, not 6. Merely one child in each school catching covid from a family member (which I think has been established as the primary source of kids getting sick?) covers the infection rate in schools, meaning “community transmission” is virtually non-existant in schools.
1 Like
I guess that means “no.”
Do you really think that 1 case per 1,000 people is high transmission?
Do you really think that 1 cases per 5,000 people should not be considered LOW?
1 Like
Duh. Sustained at that rate, everyone is infected in under a year. These numbers you refer to as “seem low” are absurdly high, even in context of other diseases with lower mortality, or even things that are completely benign. At least in modern history.
I don’t follow. Can you explain that to me like I’m 12. [seriously]
Um… one case per thousands would mean about 30 people per thousand infected in a year…
The sustained prevalance has been nearly 3x as high as 1 case per 1,000, and after 20 months we’re at roughly 15% of the population. I’m pretty certain that 15% in 20 months is not “everyone in under a year”.
PFE vaccine approved by FDA on emergency basis for ages 5-11.
Has anyone yet defined the relevant emergency?
Meed asked about 1 per 1000, not 1 per 10,000.
And your previous reference was to 3 per 1,000, or 30 per 10,000
A sustained 1 case per 1000 would be 356 cases per year of each 1000, but more than that many infections
Cmon. Disagrees with a “doctor” on Facebook who claims otherwise with no data. Do your own research sheeple, cdc is just lying to control you.
huh? did you forget the /sarcasm tag? 
The analysis found people hospitalized with coronavirus-like symptoms were more than five times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 if they had had recent prior infection than if they were recently vaccinated.
That seems like pretty contrived parameters that produced this result? Don’t you usually take a pool of vaccinated and previously infected, and then see how many end up hospitalized?
3 Likes
This guy would hate on the CDC anyway, but here’s his critique of that CDC “natural immunity vs vaccine” study.
Sounds like it merits a careful, critical look at the CDC’s stats if nothing else.
3 Likes
This guy is a troll. I read the article and his arguments make absolutely no sense.
How do you get a pool of previously infected? Most people probably didn’t even know they were sick, and most of those who were slightly sick probably didn’t get tested.
How does 1 case per 1,000 weekly translate to 356 cases per 1,000 annually? Seriously. Please answer this like I’m 12.
Seriously? This is your defense to not properly running a study in order to actually come to the conclusion of whether natural immunity is as strong as vaccine immunity.
1 Like
That wasn’t a defense, it was a serious question. I think glitch brings up valid points. Unlike the article xerty posted.
You think it would be difficult to find a bunch of people that have tested positive for covid in the past year and a half for a study?
3 Likes