[codeulike]

That maths you link to literally says that the threshold for herd immunity among the entire population is indeed lowered. And that was the original posters point.

I think you're getting too caught up in the details. Its still good news, and it still means that herd immunity is easier and faster to achieve

[acqq]

> Its still good news, and it still means that herd immunity is easier and faster to achieve

It is not even clear it's "good news", it doesn't "still mean" at all, read carefully under "Edit 2" of my parent post. It can also mean that it will take longer. R0 must be reevaluated, and threshold is f(R0). We don't even know the "correct" function for the threshold, even less which people contribute in which way. We don't know how much were infected up to now, the high numbers weren't random samples, prevalence in global population is much lower than in a few hot spots where a lot of deaths happened. "Math is hard." Immunology is complex.

[guscost]

> R0 must be reevaluated

I'm at the point of concluding: "All R0-based models are useless for a disease like this." The true dynamics are far too complex, and this assumption that we can conclude anything by plugging linearly-varying (or constant!) parameters into a trivially non-linear model is absurd.

[hcknwscommenter]

"That maths you link to literally says that the threshold for herd immunity among the entire population is indeed lowered. "

The maths you refer to do not make that judgment at all. They indicate that, assuming all the assumptions that go into those models are true (they aren't), herd immunity may be lowered, but not by much.