Not wanting to dampen enthusiasm, but not wanting people to have dashed hopes either. I don’t think we should put all our eggs in the antibody basket because it will take a long time to test everyone and if we find 4 - 10% have antibodies, as suspected. What about the 90 - 96% who don’t have them? Where do they stand?
I’m increasingly of the opinion that susceptibility is the deciding factor and I’m just hoping they’re seriously looking at the biological link between obesity and susceptibility. Studies have already shown a link between obesity and asthma.
Some thoughts: the 90-96% are now at a lower risk than they were, thanks to those who've had it and are now immune. Remember as well, we're talking of 90-96% of the over 30s, or over 40s - wherever the line is drawn for an antibody response to be mounted. Under that age most dispose of the virus in other ways - whether that means they'll keep catching it, or whether there's another mechanism to provide immunity remains to be seen.
We now now that by far the most important factor is age. We should be doing all we can to ensure the over 60s are kept as safe as possible from it, as they are more likely to die if they get it.
For the rest, a gradual easing will doubtless continue and as a result that number of immune people will gradually rise... and every percentage point gained in terms of immunity will reduce R by that little bit more (it's also an exponential function, so going from 10-11% immune will have more of an effect than 2-3% immune).
Obesity - yes, it's a factor but a mild one. There are lots of fat under 45s, for example, yet we know that under 45 you are most unlikely to die from it. Age and then underlying conditions are far, far more of an indicator it seems.
Which leaves us with those unlucky folks who, for whatever reason, are young, otherwise healthy and die. The chances are miniscule, of course, but we should be doing much more research - DNA analysis etc - to see what the cause is.