Is that so? Because according to many studies, the r0 is about 2 - 2.5ish. That means for every one person, they have the likelihood of transmitting it to 2-2.5 ppl on average.

Why is this important? Because you take ONE person with c19 and, from beginning of the incubationperiod to getting better, you have about 2wks, say.

Though it started technically earlier but was underreported by dipsh*t news orgs like yours, let's say it was 2020 sometime in March, during a time when the r0 would have been much higher but I digress. That's almost 120 wks. Say w/ an r0 of 2 and about 2wks total from having c19 to getting better, that's 2 ^ (120/2 - 1) ppl who would have it by now, or 570 quadrillion.

Obviously as ppl's immunities strengthen, the r0 depreciates, so let's look at the reverse scenario. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52473523 ... According to this 2021 article, it's been 0.7 to 0.9ish under Iockdown in the UK with 280~ ppI/km^2 vs the US where it's 34ish funnily, enough. Say 0.8 and we've all been on Iockdown, essentially, for 2yrs. Using the same math for 0.8 and 104wks respectively, it's 0.8^(104/2 - 1) which is 1.14 e-3% or 1.14 e-5 * 100%. Meaning even if literally every1 in the world had c19 at the same time 104wks ago, then only 79,925 ppI would be without naturaIimmunity to it. That's even assuming it's just as equally retransmissibIe which it clearly is not.

Now then, retard. If it's safe to assume most of us have had it by now outside of "think about muh grammaw from the mountains who's literally been in complete isolation since the early 1900s" then tell me how after reading the numbers how jabmunity stands up to the same naturaIimmunity that has allowed us hominids to survive for 2.9 to 3.9 million yrs in the wilderness with no access to modernheaIthcare.

https://cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm ...