There is substantial criticism mounting directed at the Heinsberg study [1]
- Immunity tests used might have shown false positives. So the 15% might be too high.
- Results of the highly infected town Gangelt are not transferable to whole Germany with lower infection rates.
- The author of the study is inflicted with a marketing agency, which is at least uncommon in science.
Own comment: The danger SARS-Cov19 remains in the speed of spreading due to missing herd immunity (in contrast to the common flu). 0.37 per cent is still a lot. USA: 327,200,000*0.37% = 1,210,640. Social distancing remains the single most effective tool.
There is always substantial criticism of any minority position in science, it's a subculture full of bullshit politics like any other. Also see my other comment - 15% could just as easily be too low:
- Immunity tests used might have shown false positives. So the 15% might be too high.
- Results of the highly infected town Gangelt are not transferable to whole Germany with lower infection rates.
- The author of the study is inflicted with a marketing agency, which is at least uncommon in science.
Own comment: The danger SARS-Cov19 remains in the speed of spreading due to missing herd immunity (in contrast to the common flu). 0.37 per cent is still a lot. USA: 327,200,000*0.37% = 1,210,640. Social distancing remains the single most effective tool.
[1] https://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2020-04/heinsberg-stud...