The disease-induced herd immunity level for Covid-19 is lower than the classical
Interesting that it seems to suggest there is an optimal amount of distancing&#x2F;lockdown&#x2F;etc. to lower the peak, but avoid a big &quot;rebound&quot;.  I don&#x27;t see a lot of discussion about how to find that optimum amount.<p>It has occurred to me that the planet is essentially conducting a gigantic experiment in virus evolution, by creating a novel viral selection environment never seen before.  For example, how does it impact a virus if the strains most likely to send the host to the hospital, actually spread more than the strains most likely to be asymptomatic, because even asymptomatic hosts are in isolation?<p>Unless there is a vaccine or cure coming soon (there isn&#x27;t), then the end result must be herd immunity, no matter what the policy.  It would seem that we should be considering how to select for the healthiest segment of the population to provide that herd immunity, rather than trying to isolate as much as possible in the vain hope that it will die out prior to that point.  If that was every possible, it has long since spread way too far to expect that to be possible.<p>There might be cases (e.g. MERS) where you can stomp out a virus before it spreads enough to cause herd immunity, but we have long since passed that point.  I don&#x27;t think most people (including policy makers) are thinking about the endgame properly (as this paper does).